
Denmark to ban petrol and diesel car sales by 2030 - afishisafish
https://www.euractiv.com/section/electric-cars/news/denmark-to-ban-petrol-and-diesel-car-sales-by-2030/
======
netcan
At the start, I thought these announcements and laws (eg Scotland) to ban ICE
vehicles by 20XX were cheap politics. A promise Someone Else will deliver
later, with credit due to you now.

I've come around though. I think all the bastardized carbon accounting, market
based solutions are on average quite bad. The idea of a neutral, "market
decides" policy is a myth. These things are complex, and that compmexity is an
opportunity for regulatory capture.

For example, most European vehicle tax codes have been altered to reflect
emissions.

The upshot is that (1) new vehicles are 20% ish more efficient (2) older
vehicles become uneconomical faster (3) people who drive older vehicles clear
pay more tax. (4) Switching from a 10yr old ICE hatchback to a new one can
easily save you $500 pa. Going from a new "efficient" ICE to an electric will
save you a fraction of that.

New car buyers pay less tax, old cars pay more. Vehicles hit junkyards faster.
Manufacturers sell more cars. Over a decade we'll see a minor (maybe 20% at
best) decrease in carbon emissions.

Very little environmental juice for a lot of poor and middle class squeeze. A
nice little sales boost for VW.

There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of an outright ban. Ban ICEs. Ban
commercial fishing. It worked for CFCs and market hunting. In retrospect, no
one wishes we had split hairs with a complicated policy.

~~~
eanzenberg
Unfortunately, production of cars (and consumerism in general) is extremely
bad for carbon emissions and for the environment. Carbon emissions from the
production of 1 car generally rival the lifetime emissions from the tailpipe
[1]. If you have no choice but to replace an old car for new then sure, get a
more efficient one. If you're replacing cars every 3 years like an average
westerner, given the age of cars I see on the road, you are doing extreme
harm. Old cars that are running should be incentivized to continue to be on
the road, barring any other pollutant or smog issues.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-
blog/20...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-
blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car)

~~~
FullyFunctional
Consumerism is bad for the planet, 100% true. However the "every 3 years like
an average westerner" remark needs citation. In the context of the article
(Denmark) it is certainly not true. Cars are so expensive (the 180% tax is
absolutely real - I've paid it) that people hold on to cars longer and buy
used more. In fact, the number of people with zero cars would be hard to
believe if you come from California.

Alas, the politics are made by city people (who have access to really good
public transport) and paid for by people in suburbia who _have_ to own a car
to survive (and no, we can't just move everyone to the city).

EDIT: typos

~~~
hydrox24
> (the car tax is) paid for by people in suburbia who _have_ to own a car to
> survive.

I have been wondering for a little while now if the extreme libertarian
position on private roads has been vindicated. I am not sure yet, but it seems
possible where once it was ridiculous.

Starting with (let us say) World war two, cities and states built out
substantial, publicly funded roads and road networks in order to connect up
newly developed sub-urban centres that were designed for car owners. These new
centres were affordable for the emerging middle classes, who migrated there
en-masse. This co-incided with the baby-boom, which was partly possible due to
cheap housing.

But this left the inner cities to die slow deaths where immigration was not
high. (Side note: This is more true of American towns, in Australia I don't
know that we had the dramatic changes seen in the highly industrialised
centres of the USA.) So it possibly boosted the middle class at the expense of
the lower class (?) and it created huge urban sprawl.

Would private roads, paid for collectively by the developers or residents of
those suburbs, have helped to alleviate or reduce the problems outlined above?

I am spitballing here, and it is a little off-topic, but please indulge me!

~~~
kalleboo
Japan has a majority- privatized highway network, funding it requires tolls
way higher than would be politically feasible in any western country. Gas and
tolls make taking the bullet train cheaper for some distances if you're alone
(the equation changes if you load up your family).

I live here and have to pay the tolls but I still prefer it from a "user pays"
justice POV.

It doesn't have to be privatized though - Singapore is introducing a GPS-
distance-based congestion charge on their roads ("ERP 2" if you want to Google
it)

~~~
ioquatix
As a recent example, the cost to travel by train into Tokyo from Narita cost
me about ¥800, but the tolls from driving cost about ¥2000. So, if you travel
with 3+ people in a car, it's cheaper to drive, provided you already own a
car.

------
noobermin
People especially here constantly rail against Europe, specifically their
start-up scene, against taxes, against regulations, etc. At the same time, our
cities are unlivable, inaccessible, crowded, our infrastructure is falling
apart, a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor causing increases in
homelessness in cities and opiod addiction in rural areas. Western Europe
isn't utopia, but in many areas, their policies are actually in the public
interest and raise most people up[0].

[0] Perhaps not natives, but that's another story.

~~~
BonjelaSoup
> "People especially here constantly rail against Europe"

> "our cities"

Where is "here" and "our cities"?

~~~
stephengillie
People love to cherry pick a statistic from one European city, and ask why all
of the American empire can't be like that.

/s/public transportation/health care/cars/etc.

~~~
lasc4r
Cherry picking isn't really needed, infrastructure and health care are a
disaster here.

edit: For some perspective, there are 240,000 water main breaks every year in
the US, wasting over 2 trillion gallons of treated drinking water.

[https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-
item/drinking-w...](https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-
item/drinking-water)

~~~
stephengillie
These statistics are only possible in a nation that has over 240,000 water
mains (or do some break more than once a year?)

A smaller nation can choose a solution that works better at smaller scales,
but doesn't scare well - because they don't need it to scale much. A larger
empire has fewer options.

~~~
ric2b
Europe has far more people than the US, I don't know what you're on about.

------
DerJacques
While the promise sounds great, it's important to note that no law has
actually been passed.

Also, incentives to increase sales of electric vehicles are yet to be
announced.

Denmark's Scandinavian neighbour Norway is on the other side of the spectrum.
Heavy subsidisation has caused every 2nd (!) car sold to be electric
([https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-norway-
autos/...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-norway-autos/norway-
powers-ahead-over-half-new-car-sales-now-electric-or-hybrid-idUSKBN1ES0WC)).

~~~
xxs
Isn't it ironic that most of welfare and subsidies actually come from the oil.
Stuff like 25km of under sea tunnel leading to a town with sub 2k population
is quite a common sight there.

While Norway is an amazing country in many aspects, the amount of oil owned by
a state company puts it in a rather unique position.

~~~
thelaith5
This is a great article explaining how an Iraqi was largely the mind behind
putting all the oil money in a state-owned fund as to avoid the damage that
oil usually had done to any country that had discovered it.

[https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...](https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0)

~~~
tomaskafka
Putting all oil money into state owned fund also kinda helps the people ruling
the state :)

------
gambiting
As great as it is, remember that hybrids are exempt. And the law is very lax
when it comes to a definition of a hybrid - Range Rover has a model with a
whooping 1 mile(!!!) of electric range, but of course it has an electric motor
so it qualifies as a hybrid and could still be sold under this ban. I expect
very very soon we'll see this kind of extremely minor electrification coming
to all kinds of vehicles, where a tiny electric motor integrated into the
transmission provides few extra HP of power just to call the car a hybrid.

~~~
rb808
> 1 mile(!!!) of electric range,

Other people have talked about this, but I'm wondering if the change to having
electric drive motors and an engine just for generating electricity is more
efficient and easier on the engine. (regenerative breaking aside)

~~~
floatrock
The Chevy Volt is like this -- drivetrain is electric, gas engine is just a
generator.

~~~
davidgould
What you are describing is a “series hybrid”. The Chevy Volt is not a pure
series hybrid, it has an elaborate mechanism to connect the gas engine to the
wheels when it is efficient to do so. For example highway cruise where the gas
engine can run near its optimal rpm.

------
PopeDotNinja
I went to Denmark last year and spent two weeks driving all over the
countryside, and likely would have been difficult to reach with an electric
car. Many of the places I visited would not have been accessible via public
transit. I'm curious how future generations will reach remote places as we
move away from fossil fuels.

BTW, I loved Denmark :)

~~~
WhompingWindows
Send yourself back in time to when less than 1% of the populace is using
petrol cars to get around. In that timeframe of the early 1900's, it would've
been incredibly hard to get around the rural areas as well, since they'd still
be dominated by horse, foot, and perhaps bicycle traffic. Now, send yourself
forward 100 years: it will be nearly impossible to use petrol-powered
transport, and EV will be the standard.

Saying the current infrastructure is inadequate for a new mode of transport is
a truism. Infrastructure takes decades to build out, of course EV's will not
be expected to have huge charging infrastructures while less than 1% of cars
are EV.

Long term, It'll be just as easy, if not easier, to get around in the future.
Consider all the new transport tech that's emerging: electric bikes, scooters,
fully self-driving vehicles, drones which can carry people, VTOL aircraft,
hyperloop, etc. They are all more interesting and promising than the current
noxious fume spewing transport. I'm excited for even 1/3 of those options to
come to fruition :)

~~~
cptaj
I absolutely agree with you about infrastructure. Its definitely coming and
will cover most use cases.

But I do wonder how we're gonna cover that last mile. Adding hundreds of miles
of range to an ICE car is hilariously simple, just a couple of plastic
containers in the trunk and you're good to go.

Can't add extra batteries like that. Energy density is not a truism.

Maybe portable ICE generators, sort of like hybrid addons for full EVs.

I really liked the hybrid tech. I don't know why its not dominating.

~~~
bluGill
There are power lines to most places already. The utility replaces/upgrades
them on a schedule (IIRC the expected lifespan for overhead lines last for 17
years, underground for 15). Which is to say the infrastructure is mostly
there, and just needs updates that would happen anyway.

~~~
pedrocr
This seems so clear and yet we get the "how are we going to build this huge
charging network" all over the place. If the situation was reversed we'd
consider it preposterous to think we could build a network of gas stations
that get their fuel driven in by trucks. The current network is far crazier
than just adding a bunch of outlets that use the existing and extremely robust
electricity grid that's already in place.

------
josu
There is a long list of countries that decided to ban fossil fuel burning cars
in the upcoming years.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_banning_foss...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_banning_fossil_fuel_vehicles)

Personally, I don't think the ban will ever be enforced. It will create the
right incentives and most car sales will be electric, but there will still be
fossil fuel burning car sales.

~~~
tedeh
Enforcing it is going to be quite simple.

The "DMV" or equivalent will have a very hard time explaining why they are
still giving out license plates for new vehicles that are not electric if the
ban is made law.

~~~
gambiting
As I explained elsewhere - hybrids are exempt. And all current manufacturers
can make all of their models into some extremely mild hybrids just to get
around the ban. So expect to see a lot of models with 1bhp electric motors
just to classify as hybrids coming out soon. And cars made before the ban will
obviously be still allowed, so there's no issues there.

~~~
wanderr
floatrock previously pointed out that your statement about hybrids being
exempt does not appear to be true:

"“In just 12 years, we will prohibit the sale of new diesel and petrol cars.
And in 17 years, every new car in Denmark must be an electric car or other
forms of zero-emissions car,” Rasmussen said, implying that hybrids will be
phased out in 2035."

~~~
gambiting
Uhmmmm....it does the exact opposite - it proves what I said. The law coming
in 12 years will have an exemption for hybrids. The hybrid ban will come
later(if ever)

------
reacharavindh
Wonder what it'd do to the resale value of cars even before 2030.

Denmark with their famous 150% registration tax already has cars being used
much longer than what I've seen in other countries. I'd love to see the 150%
tax waived off for 100% electric cars that are not luxury vehicles. Set strict
constraints for a common man car, and incentivize it turning electric.

Also, think about the charging infrastructure....

~~~
jimmaswell
I never understood how anyone possibly felt the ridiculously extremist state
of affairs of automobile/fuel regulations/taxes/etc in Denmark is appropriate.
The rest of Europe isn't that great either but Denmark is one of or the most
insane examples (memory isn't clear on if there was another member state that
was even worse). One of the things that makes me grateful to live in the USA -
owning and operating a car doesn't bankrupt me, especially anything bigger
than a clown car with any less than 50mpg.

~~~
reacharavindh
I wrote the comment you responded to. I live in Denmark, and here is my take
on this.

It's not as extreme that I'd call it "extremist state of affairs". Fewer cars
are for the greater good. However, what pisses me the most is how it is really
implemented. There is the famous 150% tax when you buy a car, and then there
is a green tax every 6 months/quarter that is based on how efficient &a safe
your car is. I'm all for the green tax. Heck, double or triple it, and make
the SUV drivers pay. But, the 150% tax IMO is lop sided policy. It lead to too
many small cars(VW Up, Seat equivalent, and the like) because that's what
common people can afford. Another side effect is that people tend to keep
shitty cars much longer than rational, because they cannot afford a better car
- throwing away all the emission savings in the wind(pun intended).

I think the law is made by politicians just based on life in Copenhagen, where
you can use the trains and bike wherever. Public transportation is A-class,
and you don't particularly need a car for the most part.

The rest of Denmark, where I live, public transport is not as good, and car
becomes a necessity if you go to work outside the city. We're the collateral
damage of the narrow minded policies.

/rant.

Denmark, as everyone here says is an excellent place to live, and I have a
bigger list of positives to list, and a tiny list including this car tax to
complain about.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
> It lead to too many small cars(VW Up, Seat equivalent, and the like) because
> that's what common people can afford

Slightly confused - what's the issue here? Small cars are good. They take up
less street space and tend to be more economical. My wife owns a Fiat 500
(which is about as small as you get); it's much easier to park on the narrow
streets of our rural town than a bigger car would be, its fuel consumption is
stellar, and it's no bigger than we need.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Large cars are seen as status symbols, so a lot of people _think_ they need a
big car to show how successful they are, and to "keep up with the Joneses".

The sooner people shed this silly consumerism mindset, the better.

------
seanalltogether
Instead of governments announcing bans (I believe france announced a future
ban a couple months back), I would rather see these governments committing to
only purchasing electric vehicles for all government fleets. Why not put your
money were your mouth is and help pump money into the industry via purchasing
orders, rather then simply announcing a ban?

~~~
RobAley
Because this does exactly that, and more. The gov have effectively committed
to buying only elecrtic fleets because thats all that will be sold.

~~~
seanalltogether
Not really, these bans are set so far in the future that they are almost
meaningless, a problem for the next government to figure out, or delay even
further.

On the other hand, the current government could easily announce that starting
in 2020 all new government fleet purchases are required to be electric and it
would help create a lot of new competition to bid for those orders.

------
rb666
This is really the only, and best, solution. It's simple and clear. Car
manufactures cannot get around it with their bag of tricks. Plus, 12 years is
a long long time.

------
jillesvangurp
I'm guessing economies of scale will finish the job somewhere over the next
decade already. If you operating any kind of vehicles commercially,
eliminating fuel cost should be high on your agenda. Whether it is taxi's,
buses, police vehicles, delivery vehicles, etc. For that kind of market what
matters is the total cost of ownership. This is why many taxis were early
adopters of hybrids. As soon as they become affordable enough, they'll be
going full electric.

Currently battery cost and production volumes are the main limitation. As that
improves, the market will gobble up whatever is being produced. This just puts
the pressure on a bit more. 2030 is not even that ambitious.

~~~
rootusrootus
Seems like we need to see about 10K less capital cost, and/or less atrocious
depreciation, and TCO should come into line with a comparable ICE. Solve that
and maintain the range we've got in the latest crop of EVs, and I think
they'll take over pretty steadily.

------
m3at
It's a step forward. However I'm surprised that the focus is still on
individual cars, construction of an ev is still quite polluting.

I expected to see suggestions about increase in public transportation coverage
and frequency to compensate, or maybe steps towards self-driven collective
fleets (2030 seems ambitious).

I don't know Denmark, are public transportation already well developed? Or am
I not cynical enough and it's just an economically driven decision?

~~~
KozmoNau7
Public transit is relatively well developed. We're a relatively small country,
very flat and reasonably densely populated. Obviously public transport is most
well-developed in the larger cities, with several expansions in progress.

But even rural areas are serviced by trains and bus lines. It may be slower in
rural areas than taking the car, but you can make it work. At least you can do
with one car per household instead of two.

------
Necromant2005
Electro cars are great, until you start count. Ok, if Denmark population is
about 5.7M and based on aerostat ([https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php...](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Passenger_cars_in_the_EU)) there're around 500 cars
per 1000 citizen. It means country holds ~2.5M cars right now. In general
(based on [https://www.worlddata.info/europe/denmark/energy-
consumption...](https://www.worlddata.info/europe/denmark/energy-
consumption.php)) every Denmark's citizen consumes 20kh per day. 1 of 2
citizen has a car. Electro car charging requires 50kh (average electro car
consumption). So It means Denmark must increase electric production in 5!!!
times. In order just a charge those new 2.5M cars. I'm now talking about
infrastructure requirements for this signigficant electric consumption
increase, I'm pointing to the basic knowledge (by wikipedia) that around 50%
of energy comes from coal and all renewable are less than 5%. COAL! MORE COAL
I SAID!

~~~
aembleton
That assumes that every car in Denmark will consume 50kwh per day. The 64kw
Kona Electric will do 300 miles according to the WLTP [1]. So, that assumes
every car does 234 miles every day, or over 85k miles per year.

I can't find any solid data, but I'd assume its closer to 10k miles per year,
or an eighth of what you're suggesting. That is still a lot, but it is
achievable especially with more offshore wind.

1\. [https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/kona-
electric](https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/kona-electric)

~~~
femidav
Just look how much gasoline and diesel was sold. Anything else will give you
tremendously wrong result.

------
Annatar
Good luck with that, especially with banning ultramodern, low emission, high
performance diesel cars.

I was in Denmark last year to see what's going on over there and I observed
the infrastructure very carefully: there is no widespread electric
infrastructure for cars; it will be a gargantuan investment of epic
proportions. Even if the infrastructure is put in, the current battery
technology is only barely adequate for daily city driving. Everything else -
forget it! So this is banking on future infrastructure improvement in
batteries and recharging, and it's especially banking on invention of fast
recharging. And it's assuming diesel engines and emissions will stand still,
with no further improvements. Just wondering, Danes like to travel and they
like to hitch a camping trailer to their cars and drive all over Europe; how
will they be able to do that if their government bans sales of cars with
internal combustion engines?

Whatever stuff that government is on, it's gotta be potent; I'd like some of
whatever they're smoking.

~~~
outworlder
> Even if the infrastructure is put in, the current battery technology is only
> barely adequate for daily city driving.

Barely adequate? We are reaching almost 500km on a charge now (around 300km is
more common). This is Denmark we are talking about, not Russia.

> and it's especially banking on invention of fast recharging

You mean under 30 minutes? How often do you need that? Road trips?

Note that they are not banning hybrids, which will take care of your road trip
needs just fine.

~~~
Annatar
"You mean under 30 minutes? How often do you need that? Road trips?"

Of course and of course!

"Note that they are not banning hybrids,"

Yeah but hybrids suck: gasoline automatics, and except for the Volvo, ugly
sedans. If there were more sportwagon diesel hybrids with manual
transmissions, that'd be a different story, but there aren't and probably
won't be.

And what will happen to car enthusiasts in Denmark if this legislature is
enacted?

------
mrguyorama
As an idealist I'm glad to see the world transition away from fossil fuels in
any capacity.

As a "Car Guy" however, there is a small sadness that I won't really get to
experience much of the internal combustion engine. I feel like I was born a
decade too late and a lot too poor. Similar to some techies who feel the
missed the early internet.

~~~
floatrock
Why the sadness? As a "Car Guy" I'm thrilled about electric! Instant torque
and acceleration, way more responsive than ICE. Just the other month there was
the story where an electric shattered all the previous Pikes Peak records:
[https://www.teslarati.com/vw-id-r-electric-vehicle-pikes-
pea...](https://www.teslarati.com/vw-id-r-electric-vehicle-pikes-peak-record/)

I mean, yeah, it doesn't have the same growl, but if you want raw performance,
I'll take my spaceship whirl over rube goldberg-like thousands-of-tiny-
explosions any day of the week.

~~~
lsiunsuex
the growl / sound / smell. The ability to modify, upgrade, "wrench on a car on
the weekend"

the ability to get beat on the track 1 weekend, drop a couple grand on new
parts the next, then go back and beat them the following weekend.

car shows and seeing a super charged mustang or camaro or twin turbos or
something completely different someone came up with an idea for and built.

the same way us programmers tinker and build stuff for the hell of it, is the
same was us car guys build stuff and tinker for the hell of it. some take it
seriously and go to track, some (me) just do it cause it's a nice break.

spending a day installing a new exhaust can be fun. playing with 240volts of
batteries (or whatever it is, lol) (if theres anything to play with) - not so
much i'm thinking, lol...

~~~
Theodores
Sounds like when I early adopted digital photography. My friends with proper
cameras told me how much there was to film grain, how they loved playing with
chemicals and the rest of it. They sneered at my passion for digital
photography claiming it was dull. Where are they now, on Instagram with an
iPhone.

~~~
sbarker
I see your point, but to be fair Kodak did bring film back.
[https://www.kodak.com/US/en/consumer/products/super8/super-8...](https://www.kodak.com/US/en/consumer/products/super8/super-8-film/default.htm)

------
bcheung
I have a hard time believing that the vast majority of cars won't already be
100% electric by then. Also, I doubt there will be nearly as many personal
cars and that there will be much more ride sharing and public transportation
options.

------
nottorp
Isn't Denmark the country that taxes new car purchases 120% of the price of
the car already? I don't think they're a good indicator of the overall
attitude of the EU.

~~~
Zekio
yes, and you were close with 120% but it was recently reduced to 180% from
somewhere north of that

~~~
KozmoNau7
Not quite.

It used to be 180% for the high tier, 105% for the low tier. I don't know the
cutover points used back then.

Today, it's 85% for the low tier (below ~190K DKK) and 150% for the high tier
above that. The cutover point will increase to account for inflation and such.

------
NTDF9
This is great. I don't think we in the US realize how far ahead European
countries are wrt EV. Their governments are working like startups to make this
happen. Even if only cars get replaced (and not trucks or heavy vehicles),
that's a huge boost.

Further, I think the biggest gains of this are in emerging countries like SE
asia, India etc. where the cost of oil fuel is much higher than the US. The
market size willing to ride on this tech is insane.

------
moneil971
The more countries that commit to this, the more innovation we'll see, happy
to see this being taken seriously!

~~~
femidav
Quite the opposite, actually. Governmental regulations kill innovations.

------
xyproto
This is a solid move. Better air quality and smaller chance of natural
disasters benefits us all.

------
rrcaptain
While this is a good thing, it's not nearly sufficient to stop climate
catastrophe.

~~~
femidav
Nothing can stop the next climate catastrophe. Which is the next ice age by
the way, and not some mythical global warming.

------
snambi
denmark is the size of bayarea. Yes, they can move to electric cars, because a
tesla will NOT run out of battery by travelling all over the country.

OTOH, do they even need cars? Why can't denmark just use public transportation
and abolish cars altogether?

~~~
petermonsson
Rural areas are neither economical nor convenient for public transportation.

------
Necromant2005
Coal price will rise. Oil will fall. Gas'll rise.

------
femidav
Incredibly dumb move. CO2 is our friend, not an enemy.

------
bachbach
Atsushi Horiba seems to think this is rubbish.

Does he have a point?

------
billysielu
2030 is ages away, try 2020.

~~~
scrollaway
Out of curiosity, are you the kind of person who complains if Google shuts
down a free product with less than a 1 year heads up?

I wonder how some HN commenters would do at being head of state, sometimes.
The bar seems to have lowered lately anyway.

Edit: just to clarify and be less dismissive: Banning things everyone uses
with little homework is a great way to fail at it. Since this is a tech forum,
you can think of it kinda like upgrading your language, framework, kernel and
landing a massive refactor, all at once, in production, without testing. It's
like that, except you have tens-to-hundreds of millions of users, and their
lives are at stake.

Bans take time, otherwise they're not effective. Besides, if they had
announced 2020, I'm nearly certain the parent comment would ask for 2019.

~~~
femidav
Bans like this are unlawful and should be countered by a revolution.

