- EVs are VAT (25%) exempt, and in addition avoid the extra duty due to no CO2 or NOX emissions. As an example a VW Golf 1.0 115HP TSI gasoline version is about 37.5k USD from dealer. Without VAT or emission duties, that Golf would be about 23k USD, where 8.4k USD is the emission duties.
- Many people have a relatively short commute, so limited range EVs like Nissan Leaf or e-Golf do just fine.
- A lot of our roads, especially in cities, have road toll. EVs have for many years been exempt. Recently this changed, but EVs still only pays 50% of regular cars.
The problem is a political/governance one.
Well... this is Norway. The oil industry isn't subsidized by the government, the government is subsidized by the oil industry.
"The Iraqi who saved Norway from oil" (2009)
Our ape ancestors evolved in an environment where temperatures were far higher than today. In fact, we're in a cool phase, as far as the global climate is concerned.
In longer scale, Ocean gets warmer, plankton dies, we start running out of oxygen. Not immediately - but slowly the percentage of it in the atmosphere will start dropping. I wouldn't be surprised if in a 100 years it will be common to have oxygen supply stations on the streets and if you can afford them - personal supplies of oxygen just so you can operate at 100% mental capacity. The rest will have to make do with feeling crappy all day long.
And of course we're already starting to see signs that we might have triggered a self reinforcing loop - melting clathrates releasing methane, methane heating up the atmosphere, releasing more methane.
No, humans won't die, absolutely not. But I'm 100% certain that the civilization as we know it is fucked.
Climate change, at any large enough timescale, is completely unavoidable. It's also (to me) inconceivable that humanity will agree to limit its standard of living now just so that climate change can be somewhat mitigated.
> No, humans won't die, absolutely not. But I'm 100% certain that the civilization as we know it is fucked.
In that regard, I'd be much more worried about the prospects of a nuclear war than about climate change.
Climate change seems like just the sort of thing that might start wars.
Again, some of our ape ancestors evolved in a time with far lower oxygen levels. After that, oxygen levels rose higher, but they have been drifting downwards for millions of years since then.
If fossil fuels become too expensive to pump out of the ground, some other process of creating them will replace that. Perhaps it'll come out of the atmosphere:
If the gas station stopped selling gas then electric would be the only real viable option.
Doesn’t this negate a lot of the benefits of de-ICEing vehicles?
Why doesn’t the government use gas tax increases as a tool instead of up-front discounts?
Getting the 100km/day driver to change from ICE to electric would have 10x the impact as the 10km/day driver.
Given the huge corpus of two datapoints (Norway and France), it seems that:
- if you offer discounts on EVs, people who own gas-powered cars will progressively replace them with EVs ;
- if you increases gas taxes, people who own gas-powered cars will spend their saturday afternoons demanding your head on a spike, and stop voting for you until you roll-back on the gas tax increases. (At which point, they will mostly keep not voting for you, but that's an unrelated debate.)
I suspect not every government has the benefit of choosing between both options - Norway might be an outlier here.
(And most government will probably choose the "wise" third path of doing nothing.)
My underlying theory (that must have been tested by Cialdinni, Khaneman or Ophra) is that rebates feel good, and taxes feel bad. But I don't have a double-blind placebo-controlled experiment to cite.
According to https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/
(Or $7.5 per US Gallon in Norway)
This is exactly why gas taxes are bad.
> is that rebates feel good, and taxes feel bad
You can also like some California air quality districts are doing buy back low income peoples junkers and provide them down payment assistance for hybrid and electric cars. There is a lot less political blow back from those sorts of programs.
Point-of-purchase taxes affect the choice of which vehicle to buy at the point where you were already deciding which vehicle to buy.
No, I think fuel taxes are the right way to do this - the more fuel you use the more you drive = the more you pollute.
Driving a vehicle on 10-20k is shocking from an environmental perspective once you include manufacturing.
I keep harping on that. Consider a 10 year old Toyota Camry. Soon as it was built we were committed to another 60 tons of CO2 emissions. Raising the gas tax doesn't undo that decision. And people don't junk cars because the price of gas. They junk cars because of maintenance and repair costs.
Raising gas taxes is totally weak sauce and invites political blow back. Better to just pay people to take marginal cars off the road. And discourage people from buying new ICE powered cars. Especially low MPG ICE cars.
-Not if there are 20 times as many 10km/day drivers as 100km/day ones.
Put another way - if the bulk of commutes are fairly short, the advantages of having these becoming electric is larger than that of electrifying the comparatively few long commutes - doubly so as an ICE is a much worse polluter when cold than at proper running temperature.
The first few km are the most polluting especially for NOx. Part of the push for electric is about NOx emissions rather than CO2.
Sure some of the benefits, but the context is in the discussion of incentives and the attractiveness for the average buyer. 10km/day drivers have their needs sufficiently met with cheaper, shorter-range EVs.
Most of those live in more remote areas of the country, which have lower population density and as such get charging station coverage later.
...And 2nd in worldwide median income, which is half the real reason here. The other half is that Norway has very favorable tax treatment for electric cars vs not (which is at least mentioned in this article thankfully).
But being the 13th largest oil exporter seems like a very dim relation that's not really relevant, except as a cute thing. It's like saying "Wood houses popular in Granite-producing New Hampshire." "Ad blockers popular among ad producing community." etc
[note this was commentary on submission title chosen, which previously was the same as the article: "Electric cars grab almost half of sales in oil-producing Norway"]
Looking at the US, the oil industry has long used its muscle to drive (heh) the use of automobiles and internal combustion engines, and to suppress initiatives to slow, halt, or reverse climate change.
And that's the interesting thing here: How is it that Norway's economy is so dependent upon its fossil fuels, but this doesn't appear to blind it to the consequences of fossil fuel use?
The government has agreed with itself that all the oil money goes into a big fund, and that they only use a small percentage of the expected return of the fund per year.
They've also renamed it the pension fund to make it less attractive for the current ruling politician to use more for their pet issues.
It's always a great place to live while the resources are being extracted.
Tell me, how large is the oil industry relative to other industries?
Or to put it in other words, if all oil extraction stops tomorrow what would happen to the economy?
Intuitively you would expect that. The thing that's so difficult for us to wrap our heads around about the resource curse is that intuition is completely wrong here; a sufficiently valuable natural resource can ruin a country even while it is being extracted.
The short version of the reason why is that it breaks the alignment of interest between the rulers and the people. Manufacturing industry needs a healthy and capable workforce, but as this excellent video puts it, a gold mine can run with dying slaves and still produce great treasure:
-Do keep in mind the Norwegian domestic market for fossil fuels is tiny compared to what we extract; the obvious hypocritical overtones aside, there's no reason we couldn't sell lots of hydrocarbons abroad while still promoting cleaner stuff in our domestic market.
It's even easiest when you realize domestic consumption is tiny relative to exports, so the local industry doesn't care.
In the US for years it was illegal to export oil. So industry had good motivation to encourage local use.
The current company was formed by the 2007 merger of Statoil with the oil and gas division of Norsk Hydro. As of 2017, the Government of Norway is the largest shareholder with 67% of the shares, while the rest is public stock. The ownership interest is managed by the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.
>> The average trip is 14,5 km, an increase from 2009, and lasts for 24 minutes. The average length travelled per day by each person is 47,2 km, spending 78 minutes again an increase from 2009.
Compare canada, with double the commuting distance:
>> The majority of people now work in a usual location, travelling an average of 22.8 km one-way in a straight-line distance.
Personally, I only commute a few km each day. An electic car would be great. But I also live in Canada. My monthly trip to my parents (500+km, two ferries) or my yearly trip to Winnipeg (2000+km, winter, including kicking horse pass), means that an electric car isn't an option. And the local insurance structure means two cars is equally impractical.
If you want to do it without charging, you'll need to be careful with the use of climate control and speed.
If you're happy to charge once (20-30mins) then it's utterly trivial.
The restriction is not range - the restriction is cost. The electric cars that aren't just silly toys are still quite expensive.
It’s really not that impractical if it’s really occasional.
It’s impractical if you are looking for an excuse not to change your ways.
It is when I only have a finite amount of leave that I can take. If the rental car is more expensive, must be picked up/dropped of during business hours, has unsuitable tires for a Canadian mountain pass in winter, and will bankrupt me should I have an accident "off road", it isn't practical. If I just have the long weekend, just three non-business days, I don't want to spend half of those dealing with the rental car. I want to get in my car at 2am and be where I need to be by dawn.
And being the leader in EV penetration, Norway will be able to provide clues to the rest of the world about how the transition will go. Things like:
- At what level of EV penetration will petrol stations start to close?
- What types of business models work for charging? Is it retail stores subsidizing charging stations to drive foot traffic while people wait? Retrofitting streetlights to enable on street parking? Subscription service or pay by the kwh or maybe by the mile?
- Can EVs enable smart grid demand response?
Although there are people with infantile Top Gear attitudes towards petrol (gas) and the noises made by V8 naturally aspirated engines, these people choose not to live next to really busy roads. Funny that. They don't enjoy the filth and the noise that much.
Norway is just rich enough to afford quality air and silence. They are not slumming it. Chinese cities are going the same way, getting rich enough to get rid of the moto-scooters and motorbikes.
In ten years time we will have people go to places like America to come back and joke about 'how they still drive petrol cars' as if the place is backward. See also Romania and people who come back from rural Romania to jest about them still having horse and cart.
Traditionally Norway has exported its renewable energy surplus as energy intensive metal refinement (steel, aluminum), but more domestic use is a quicker way around the problem.
Is your context significantly different from that of the study? Or do you think there are unreasonable assumptions in there?
So someone buying an EV today isn't going to save any real money for the first 5-6 years. Who ever buys the car on the used market will likely do well though.
Warranty doesn't cover maintenance, like oil change, which EVs don't need. Other examples: engine air filter, timing belts, head gaskets, cylinder heads, spark plugs. Maybe you were thinking of car dealership maintenance packages that are purchased with a new car and cover (some of) that.
- battery prices are still 30% of the total cost IIRC
- economies of scale might not apply to EV yet. In larger volumes, standardized parts, you'd probably get lower prices.
It's a bootstrapping that could be eased by govt intervention. Making a stronger plan to migrate towards EVs so that manufacturers can safely ramp up production.
So roughly speaking we are looking at $5k to $10k more for an electric car over an ICE one. It's not out of reach for all, but it's still out of reach for many. The median after-tax income in France is I think about $2k/month.
Disclaimer: all the figures I used were in EUR, that I translated to USD at current rate: so all the numbers will vary widely based on the EUR/USD fx rate.
 Figures for 2019 until May 31st: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/15/french-ev-sales-up-34-i...
France has a $.14EU cost per kWh and ~$1.40 per liter of petrol/gas. That comes to about $0.014 EU per km and around $0.07 EU per km in france.
This assumes an engine efficiency of 0.05L petrol per km (20km per L) and 100 Wh per km.
In other words, with a lot of driving, electric will ultimately be a lot cheaper to operate.
At 90km, you'd break even in france (assuming 5k price difference). That's about 18km per year.
Because they are relatively difficult to produce, and require resources which are not extracted and processed at the rate required to sell as many of them as hybrids or gasoline cars.
On the other hand, in Norway the vast majority of the price tag is taxes. This helps.
When it comes to the pure drivetrain: yes, the transmission is simpler (though there still is almost always a transmission), but once you add in the accessories which make cars practical in bad weather, and the added chassis load (in the case of high-end EVs with close to gasoline car range), and the relative ease of mining and producing steel and other bulk materials vs. rare earth materials....
Well, it at least becomes a wash. For the foreseeable future, producing electric passenger vehicles that compete with their gas counterparts in a meaningful way will continue to be extremely energy and mineral intensive, and therefore expensive.
If the subsidy is amount X, sellers raise the price by X.
»BMW executive and board member Klaus Fröhlich told reporters this week that the shift to cars powered by electricity is "overhyped," and said that there is "no" consumer demand for them.«
* face-palm *
Norway is a lot smaller than I realized (I'd guess the majority of US states have more car sales per month than that).
The bottom row total are per month and YTD
As of March 2019 Norway has 2,727,686 registered passenger cars.
Totals new cars per year:
2019: 78,209 (up to June)
Besides 1986 (167k), the number was always below 160k per year in recent decades.
Looks a lot higher than that. Though 2016-2017 took a slow turn.
This has been become a bit of an issue for politicians, as the trend towards EV has been much stronger than anticipated.
A new law is being prepared (just got through the senate and went to the president for final approval) that introduces subsides for EVs, and… wait for it…
Natural-gas powered vehicles.
Yup. LNG. And the subsidy for those is supposed to be TWICE as much as for electrics.
This sounds mind-bogglingly insane, but starts making a little sense once you realize that Poland has almost no natural gas production, and buys it, mostly from Russia.
There is no facepalm emoji big enough to finish this with.
For Polish readers, see http://moto.pl/MotoPL/7,170318,24943189,doplaty-do-samochodo... for details.
I think key caveat is in "up to".
LNG is the cleanest burning fuel, and the money goes to a democracy ( a weak democracy, but still a democracy).
About 7% of cars at the start of 2019.
We used it to develop an AI/ML model in PyTorch to detect ev-cars from hourly meter reader data. The paper:
Combustion engines, and Diesel especially, also require a lot more manpower to assemble. Spiegel, the largest and well-respected magazine, just quoted relative figures of 10 (Diesel):4 (Gasoline): 1 (Electric). So even if German manufacturers happen to survive the transition with market share intact, a lot of jobs are on the line.
And that's a big "if". Not only is there a lot of know-how that will become rather worthless. Consumers may well consider electric vehicles a new category, making brand value not transferrable.
The silver lining may be that the importance of cars for German industry, while big, is often overstated, especially outside Germany. The true strength of the country is in thousands of engineering SMEs you and I have never heard of, excelling in specialty B2B products. Stuff like pumps and industrial tooling and whatnot.
I guess this is the reasoning behind Kia's very strong investment in electric cars. They never managed to break the image of European cars having the best engines , and look at electric as an opportunity to break the stronghold. The risk for the European auto industry is real, and present in the market.
 European diesel and gasoline engines are indeed an engineering marvel, so the technological moat is real, but eroding due to a technology phase-out. Interesting times ahead.
Plus, all the Chinese EV-only brands trying to disrupt the car industry entirely (BYD, Nio, etc).
With BMW and VW both talking about plans to have their entire catalogs electrified as soon as 2023, German manufacturers may finally be feeling the existential crisis at hand and are trying to compete.
(It's American manufacturers that are probably the most at risk right now. GM and Ford aren't yet feeling enough pressure from Asian imports nor Tesla. The irony of "dieselgate" helping the US EPA force the hands of European manufacturers more firmly towards EV fleets, but not appearing to make a similar strategic impact on American manufacturers fleets is probably going to be fog thick in the next few years.)
That said, fear is rarely the right reason to avoid evolving. Better embrace the change and make your employees expert on electric motors and assembly.
This issue can be solved by pre-heating the batteries prior to driving.
With a Tesla you can trigger the heating from the Tesla app on your phone. With the BMW i3 you can plan a departure time, and if it's plugged in it will make sure the car is charged and batteries are heated if needed (Tesla has no such plugged-in restriction). Other cars may have similar systems.
Winters in Norway are usually quite cold, below -15C is common in the capital which also has the majority of the EVs. So this is something to keep in mind, but is usually not an issue once you get used to it.
Winters here can get down to around -25C and I'm curious what the real world performance is in such a case.
Even though I'll need to look out for a new car in the next 18 months, I fear it's a bit too early for a Tesla in these conditions.
But, as mentioned that doesn't mean half the range is gone, after a while the batteries heat up and you get more available range. But it can take about an hour or more, depending on driving, so you're looking at a fairly substantial hit regardless.
Another point is that the car won't supercharge if the batteries are too cold. If you regularly see -15C or below, you might want to consider a car which allows you to remote start the heating and run the battery heater from the batteries themselves, like Tesla does.
And normal car stuff works with EVs. (Every EV can pre-condition, which is effectively equivalent to a block heater, already built into it by default so you can pre-heat your car in the winter while it's still charging, to get some extra range).
He reckons there is about 20% performance hit during the winter.
Ps. his channel over the years is quite informative (and funny)
Even if there was no efficiency gain, electric cars move pollution out of city streets and into less densely populated areas.
If electricity is produced using less polluting methods like hydroelectric plants, then there's net benefit.
I don't see how thousands of small scale filters that may or may not be maintained (ie. in some countries people cut DPF out) are better than one big efficient properly maintained industrial filter.
Also decoupling power generation from consumption allows for making overall car energy usage greener over time. Not possible with ICE.
This article says that electric cars actually produce more CO2 emissions. Hard to know what the truth is when sources are conflicting.
A conservative and logical estimate is that Electric Cars emit more CO2 gas overall because it requires an extra conversion step.
Gasoline automobiles: Source --> Kinetic Energy
Electric automobiles: Source ---> Battery Power --> Kinetic Energy
Of course the real answer could be far more complicated since even gasoline distribution causes energy usage itself. The controversy and hardness to find a definitive answer makes it reasonable for me estimate that electric cars don't really do any obvious net change in energy efficiency OR green house gas reduction At All.
It doesn't match the hype.
Yes, with current energy mix electric cars in some places might be emitting slightly more CO2.
Just for US data report quotes electric fleet averages on 54MPG - average MPG of new ICE is 25MPG.
> A conservative and logical estimate is that Electric Cars emit more CO2 gas overall because it requires an extra conversion step.
Logical is to compare ICE vs electric drivetrain efficiency and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle.
Even with dirtiest energy generation electric cars are not worse than normal cars of similar size.
Also the conclusion of my response is that electric cars don't make any reasonable change to energy efficiency or green house gas emissions, which your response fails to contradict.
Is this not reasonable?
US data report quotes electric fleet averages on 54MPG - average MPG of new ICE is 25MPG.
I'm not a biased person if you clarify the implications of your "us data" and it's sources I can completely reverse my opinion in an inhumanly unbiased way.