Norway Says Half of New Cars Now Electric Or Hybrid (phys.org)

AmiMoJo quotes a report from Phys.Org: Norway, which already boasts the world's highest number of electric cars per capita, said Monday that electric or hybrid cars represented half of new registrations in the country so far this year. Sales of electric cars accounted for 17.6 percent of new vehicle registrations in January and hybrid cars accounted for 33.8 percent, for a combined 51.4 percent, according to figures from the Road Traffic Information Council (OVF). In February, those proportions fell slightly but remained high at 15.8 percent and 32 percent, respectively. While cars with combustion engines are heavily taxed, electric vehicles are exempt from almost all taxes. Their owners also benefit from numerous advantages such as free access to toll roads, ferries and parking at public car parks, as well as the possibility of driving in bus lanes.

Comments

cars bad, buses good.

[Noah Haders]

i hate when cars are in bus-only lanes. The purpose of the lanes is to allow buses to bypass traffic. it doesn't help when its' so clogged by cars that the lane moves at the same speed as the general purpose lane. thanks a lot, cars!

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't live in Belgium then, where every rule has except you on the end.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[MouseR]

You're just jealous ,i,, ,,i, :-)

I enjoy my HOV driving and my free bridge, ferry and highway tolls.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody gives a shit about you welfare bums. The sooner you understand that, the better. Now go get a job.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a very American perspective. Cities like Tokyo, Berlin or London derive part of their economic strength from the fact that they can shuffle people around efficiently using the underground, trains and buses. The American obsession with driving is completely illogical from an outside perspective.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you consider the mean distance between houses... In the USA we have HUGE tracts of land which are very sparsely populated and urban sprawl that is quite beyond anything I've seen in most other developed countries.

In England and Europe the distance between home and work is usually very short and populations are densely packed. Cares are a luxury convince item in most urban areas in Europe. In the USA they are necessitates because the distance between houses and work is quite large. It's this distance that makes cars necessary and public transportation very difficult and expensive to operate.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[fiannaFailMan]

i hate when cars are in bus-only lanes. The purpose of the lanes is to allow buses to bypass traffic. it doesn't help when its' so clogged by cars that the lane moves at the same speed as the general purpose lane. thanks a lot, cars!

The railway line through Silicon Valley was originally used to carry canned fruit to the port of San Francisco. Now it's used by commuters. It's okay for transport infrastructure to be used for different purposes when the circumstances change.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not think that it is a valid concern in say San Jose or Dallas - both cities could utilize a proper transit solution. Nobody in their right mind would propose mass transit for rural Idaho.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[drinkypoo]

i hate when cars are in bus-only lanes. The purpose of the lanes is to allow buses to bypass traffic.

The purpose of bus lanes is to force people to use public transportation by giving it an unfair advantages by forcing everyone to waste resources so that it can monopolize them, which in turn actually creates traffic congestion. It's a stupid idea by and for stupid people.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Anonymous Coward]

The water table and the clay make any sort of underground system in Dallas dubious at best. not to mention that a lot of people that work in the metroplex live outside of it, often more then an hour drive outside of it.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[SeaFox]

The purpose of bus lanes is to force people to use public transportation by giving it an unfair advantages by forcing everyone to waste resources so that it can monopolize them, which in turn actually creates traffic congestion. It's a stupid idea by and for stupid people.

There would be less congestion if the road wasn't full of 4-8 person vehicles being used to transport a single driver to their destination.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[drinkypoo]

There would be less congestion if the road wasn't full of 4-8 person vehicles being used to transport a single driver to their destination.

Put them on a rail, instead. Then they can run right up one another's arses without causing problems.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[LostMyBeaver]

Noah,

The purpose of letting electric cars drive in the bus lane is because electric cars had such limited range that it solved a few issues to have electric cars in that late.
  - If the car died due to lack of charge, it was closer to where it could be pushed off the road.
  - Sitting in stop and go traffic was devastating to battery life, so people couldn't get to or from work on a charge
Basically, it made electric cars a practical option before the technology came up to speed.

This is 2017 where even a Twizzy gets nearly 100km on a charge. Teslas get 500km and BMW i3 gets 300km, etc...

In 2017, electric cars in the bus lane are actually far too plentiful. They're using the lane not as a means of maintaining their battery, but they're using it as an incentive to skip queues. On E18 on the east side of Oslo, traffic is completely stopped for non-electric cars except during 07:00-09:00 each morning because electric cars are claiming right of way at the front of the queue to merge at the bottleneck. Anyone sitting in traffic before 07:00 there will move at 2-3km/hr. Then 07:00 comes around and traffic is back to about 50km/hr. This is because the opportunists are no longer allowed to clog the bottleneck. Let me also say that the mentality of these drivers often is "screw the zipper effect. I have electric and am coming from the right. I have the right of way." and they force their ways in.

I have a BMW i3 in Oslo and I have never driven in the bus lane since I've never been near a bus lane when my charge is too low. Other electrics drive past me and some drivers slow down and glare at me because they think I'm screwing up the system for them.

They should have a new rule which allows city car electrics with a documented range of 70km or less to use the bus lane. This will promote more companies to use small city electrics for courier and food deliveries. Then all other electrics should be treated as normal cars. And they should ban Tesla from traffic during rush hour since Tesla drivers are the asshole types who traded in their Audi's just to take advantage of the bus lane and screw everything up for everyone else.

Remember... the bus lane rule is there because
  "You're electric car is a piece of shit that can't even drive you to work.".
  It's basically a handicap lane for handicapped cars.
  We don't want to be stuck behind your dumb ass because you bought a car that sucks that bad.

It's not a right
It's not a reward
It's not a bonus
It is not an incentive.

It was there because we wanted to build infrastructure to support electric cars even when they really sucked.

They don't suck anymore.

Ditch the rule.

My i3 which is really a piece of shit and couldn't hold a Toyota's (any model) jock strap is still good enough that there is absolutely no practical reason why it should be allowed in the bus lane.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Common misconception.

Europe is larger, has more population and is way more diverse than the US.

Any claim about Europe being in a specific way is typically wrong since Europe is in a lot of different ways.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[serviscope_minor]

The purpose of bus lanes is to force people to use public transportation

More encourage rather than force.

by giving it an unfair advantages by forcing everyone to waste resources so that it can monopolize them, which in turn actually creates traffic congestion.

In many big cities, the public transport networks shift more people than private cars do on a daily basis. If you make the public transport worse, more people will use cars instead and that will create far worse congestion.

Certainly at busy times in London, bus lanes gives a net increase in the throughput of people. The full buses at rush hour hold 90 people or so and you can get one or two a minute going past busy points. On a free running, busy road lane, you should get a single car every few seconds. It's obviously different outside rush hour, but that's the most congested time when these things matter most.

In other words, if you removed the bus lane, the net throughput of people would be worse, which means the congestion would go up.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Anonymous Coward]

and they keep voting for the parties in control of the rich.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rail is for commies.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Anonymous Coward]

We want people to buy electric cars to reduce pollution.

Electric cars are still a bit more expensive than polluting cars.

People need an incentive to buy them.

One of those is allowing them to use HOV lanes.

Alternatively, we could ban ICE cars from the roads. Would you prefer that?

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Gussington]

The purpose of bus lanes is to force people to use public transportation by giving it an unfair advantages by forcing everyone to waste resources so that it can monopolize them, which in turn actually creates traffic congestion. It's a stupid idea by and for stupid people.

I'm not even sure what gibberish you've written there, but it sounds like you're saying that bus lanes create congestion?
Cars do not scale in large cities, any simpleton knows that. And if you do some simple math, you'll realise there not enough land to build enough roads for everyone to drive their own car. So what's your solution smart one?

Re: cars bad, buses good.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're just wrong. Stop being wrong. Find real data instead of puking up propaganda. Your argument would suggest Tokyo + ocean is the same as the Appalachians, since you could include enough ocean to achieve the same average density.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[thegarbz]

it doesn't help when its' so clogged

If you're at the point where your bus lane is "so clogged" due to incentives given to EVs to use underused infrastructure then I think the world has become a better and above all cleaner place.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[William Baric]

Based on my own experience, bus lanes often do create congestion. They created a new bus lane on a street I take every day, and congestion has become a lot worse since then, which is not surprising since the bus lane was created by removing one car lane.

Sure, one bus can transport more people, but first, you have to consider that the average speed of a bus is much lower than cars since they must stop every 100 meters to let people in and out. I'm faster on a bicycle! And the slower people go, the more there will be congestion. Second, and that's the key point, there's much less buses than cars. Where I live, it's about one bus every three or four minutes. So most of the time, the bus lane is not used, which is a complete waste of space.

Anyway the real problem is city planning. Because of traditions, everyone believes that higher density is the way to go. But it is the opposite. We should lower density by spreading out cities. Lower density not only means higher quality of life, but also lower congestion. More particularly, city centers should be eliminated. Office and shops should be spread out. to avoid everyone going at the same place at the same time.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Noah Haders]

cars move one person at a time. a bus moves 40 people. a single bus only lane can take 3 lanes of cars off the freeway. it makes less congestion for everybody.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Terje Mathisen]

Before EVs, the bus (& taxi) lanes were never clogged here in Oslo, they did in fact have significant spare capacity.

When the regulators wanted to encourage EVs they said up front that we can let them drive in the bus lanes, but only up to a point: As soon as there are enough of them that they actually slow down the buses, then we'll take away that incentive.

This duly happened a year or two ago, for a few highly congested stretches, and now you cannot drive E18 bus lanes during rush hours unless your EV is also a HOV, which in this case means having at least two people in the car.

Terje

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Noah Haders]

I think this is the way it has to be. keep ratcheting up the requirements in order to keep the lane free. Some metrics: a freeway lane moves best when it has 50 cars per mile. bumper to bumper, it has 100+ cars per mile. Gridlock, 200 cars per mile.

So if you have a 4 lane freeway that is bumper to bumper at rush hour, that is 400 cars per mile. you add a fifth carpool lane that you want to keep to 50 cars per mile. This means that only 10-15% of cars should qualify for the carpool lane. You need to change your requirements to keep the qualifications that low.

locally, we're trying to bump up the 2+ carpool to 3+.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Noah Haders]

I'm pretty sure you don't know a damn thing about traffic, infrastructure utilization, or tube cloggage.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Gussington]

Based on my own experience, bus lanes often do create congestion.

Causes of congestion are well understood, and more lanes for cars doesn't help

Anyway the real problem is city planning. Because of traditions, everyone believes that higher density is the way to go. But it is the opposite. We should lower density by spreading out cities. Lower density not only means higher quality of life, but also lower congestion. More particularly, city centers should be eliminated. Office and shops should be spread out. to avoid everyone going at the same place at the same time.

Most cities have growing populations, and to cater for more people you can only go out (sprawl), or go up (density).
Sprawl means you need a car to get around, but the car simply does not scale as a solution in large cities, it is the cause of congestion. Underground/overhead rail is the only transport solution that scales to city sized populations. And Rail works best when everyone is within walking distance of a station (ie higher density).

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak for yourself, dimwit. I own a tesla, and when I'm driving to and from Oslo, I'm taking the buslane, because that allows me to go faster, even these days, than following the congestion on the main road. And may I note that it's exactly the PURPOSE of the incentive of the government? It's one of the benefits so people will buy more EV, you nutcase. It's NOT because of what you claim: that it was meant for EV who can't muster the power and do anything but be a pile of crap. (you BMW isn't much better than that, btw, compared to a Tesla).

So you're starting with a premise that is already false from the get go, and then you build further on that with skewed reasonings. Basically, you're talking shit. since the bus-lane is meant as an incentive for EV (and not only for crappy EV's; that's an invention of your own. Show me where it ever said the goal is to provide crappy EV's a way out...), EV are fully entitled to use it.

And than you complain EV take their priority at the end of that lane. Well, yes. Of course. What would be the use of getting into a faster bus-lane if you have to wait hours until you can merge at the end? There would be no sense in it, otherwise. Besides, cars have the right to merge in there, and yes, they're coming from the right. so what's your point? EVERY car trying to merge and coming from the right is allowed by law to do so. That you don't like that is none of my concern, nor that of the law.

You are one of those stuck-up BMWi3 drivers, aren't you? Those with a car too good to be used in your own 'crappy EV' lane, but too bad to be able to drive like a good car should. You're stuck in the middle. But that was your choice, pall. Don't be pissed off on Tesla-owners because you were too dumb to buy a *real* electrical car that actually performs. your comment about tesla and their owner just reeks of jealousy and petty pouting. Its not that we are assholes, it's that you are a soured dimwit, not grasping the fact that your 'arguments' don't hold any water. We Tesla owners use the possibilities the government offered and provided, and you're damn mad and sour about it, cursing people who simply use their law-given rights, and aren't so sado-masochistic as you.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[thegarbz]

I think you don't understand my point. But I'm not going to spell it out for you either.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Noah Haders]

I don't think you understand what "underused infrastructure" means. The optimum density on a freeway lane is 50 cars per mile, or cars approx 4-5 car lengths apart. This gives you the maximum flow (cars per hour). If you add more cars, flow goes down, and your infrastructure becomes sub-optimal. So, now you understand. you're welcome!

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[drinkypoo]

Causes of congestion are well understood, and more lanes for cars doesn't help

Yes, but bus lanes don't help either.

Underground/overhead rail is the only transport solution that scales to city sized populations.

Right! Bus lanes are stupid. What's wanted is parking garages where you can catch a PRT pod... and a PRT system to go with that pod

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Gussington]

Right! Bus lanes are stupid.

But still less stupid than cars...

What's wanted is parking garages where you can catch a PRT pod... and a PRT system to go with that pod

Also more stupid than bus lanes. In large, dense cities, to move large amounts of people you need large vehicles. These are trains and buses, not cars, robot cars, cars on rails, or any other variation of the car. Cars are the stupidest option available.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[drinkypoo]

In large, dense cities, to move large amounts of people you need large vehicles.

That's a stupid idea, and it's not backed up by anything. Buses tend to spend a lot of time severely underutilized, which is a problem that smaller vehicles won't have.

These are trains and buses, not cars, robot cars, cars on rails, or any other variation of the car. Cars are the stupidest option available.

They don't require you to share, which is a massive feature; I've been on buses, and I don't like being on them. They also don't require you to go places you don't want to go, as buses do. They don't make you wait for lots of other people to get their shit together during embarkation or disembarkation, as buses do. They don't take massive amounts of energy to start and stop, as buses do. Large vehicles are idiotic and that you believe they are good is ridiculous. They are terrible even from an efficiency standpoint, and they are also terrible in every other way. The only thing good about them is that they require less human labor, but the human labor component is being removed.

Re:cars bad, buses good.

[Gussington]

That's a stupid idea, and it's not backed up by anything.

A subway train is capable of moving 75000 people an hour. You average freeway lane moving at 110km/h tops out at about 2000 people per hour. It's not even close.

Buses tend to spend a lot of time severely underutilized, which is a problem that smaller vehicles won't have.

Even then they still beat average people moved per hour. The stats vary depending on road type, city density etc, but where I live, in rush hour we move less than 1000 cars per lane (mostly with one person in them), The bus service moves almost 10000. Again, not even close .

They don't require you to share, which is a massive feature; I've been on buses, and I don't like being on them. They also don't require you to go places you don't want to go, as buses do. They don't make you wait for lots of other people to get their shit together during embarkation or disembarkation, as buses do. They don't take massive amounts of energy to start and stop, as buses do. Large vehicles are idiotic and that you believe they are good is ridiculous. They are terrible even from an efficiency standpoint, and they are also terrible in every other way. The only thing good about them is that they require less human labor, but the human labor component is being removed.

A bus uses about 2-3 times as many resources as a car yet moves 100 times as many people. So they are up to 30 times more efficient.
The fact they don't go where you want is due to poor town planning or investment, not anything inherently flawed with a bus or train. Just because you know nothing about the efficiency and effectiveness of different modes of transport doesn't other people don't.
The fact remains, in large dense cities, Trains and buses are the only option currently available that can scale to meet demand.

Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[OrangeTide]

In pretty much every western nation, if you can afford a new car, then you don't have to pay gas tax, tolls, and maybe even get a tax credit for upgrading your home electrical for fast charging. Yay, must be nice to have disposable income so you can skip out on taxes.

We should probably start taxing the batteries because of the pollution they currently create.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[kamapuaa]

I suppose they could really help the working man by getting rid of environmental controls altogether. It's a balance, and personally I'm glad the US didn't go the way of Europe and encourage cheap, high-polluting diesel cars.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[zlives]

still less than ice...

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

>We should probably start taxing the batteries because of the pollution they currently create.

You mean may create if not recycled at EOL. They're already taxed/regulated at creation, and they produce no significant pollution while in operation.

Not that it matters. You poor people will end up buying the electrics and hybrids from us rich people and when we enact the fee for decommissioning the battery, we'll make you pay for it. Because we're rich. We didn't get that way by being fair to the poor, and we don't intend to change it.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[jopsen]

Norway like Denmark has extremely high taxes on cars... In Denmark you pay for the car 3 times, once to the manufacturer, twice in taxes :) hehe

The effect:
1) Fewer cars on the road, less traffic, pollution, etc...
2) Fewer cars imported (good for balance sheets),
3) Many old cars on the road (bad for the environment, safety)

Because the taxes are so high it simply prices anything put the cheapest cars out of the market for most people. This doesn't just affect the rich, albeit they are the primary beneficiaries.
Don't believe the taxes on cars in Norway are high checkout: (just found it on google). https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/...

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[bluefoxlucid]

I just bought a 2013 Chevrolet Volt for $11,000 plus fees ($12,295 total). The car is in excellent condition, even at 68,000 miles; the internal combustion engine has been run way more than necessary, with only 3% of its lifetime drive being on battery.

The 2013 Volt is an excellent car. The battery lasts about 38 miles, and I have a 13 mile commute; I use 66% of the battery both ways. The generation-2 Volt has a 53 mile all-electric range; 90% of commutes are below 60 miles, and 68% are below 15 miles, so the 2016 and later Chevrolet Volt runs all-electric nearly 100% of the time for over 90% of daily commuters, and the 2015 and earlier Volt runs all-electric nearly 100% of the time for over 75% of daily commuters.

The 2013 Chevrolet Volt had an MSRP of $41,000. I got mine for $11,000. The car was bought by my dealer in October, 2016.

Rich people's cars go out the door in 3 years for newer, fancier cars. Look at the Chevrolet Volt battery and structural support members, and compare that to the Chevrolet Bolt battery and its base panel. By re-enginering the Chevy Volt battery base panel to be a stressed member battery pack, like the Bolt, you could get another 50-75 miles of range--raising the 58 mile range of the Generation 2 Volt to a 108 or 133 mile range without crowding out the existing supports. This would add several thousand dollars to the cost, although newer technology (including more automation in factories) will bring that down.

The end result: a PHEV with 108+ miles of all-electric range and a total 475+ miles of combined range, with an electric recharge time (at 3.3kW, 240V at 13.75A) of under 8 hours (under 4 hours with a 6.6kW circuit--240V on a 30A circuit). Recharge rate at 3.3kW is 14.5 miles per each hour of charging; if the charge circuit were re-specced to 6.6kW for this hypothetical vehicle, it would recharge 29 miles of range per each hour--nearly the full range of the Generation 1 Volt.

Note that upgrading my home electrical to add a 40 amp, 240V charging station (9.6kW) for the Volt and future EVs will cost me under $1,000. Using a Level 1 charger plugged into a normal 15-amp receptacle (no electrical upgrade) restores 4 miles per hour of charge, making an overnight charge (8pm to 8am) a 48-mile top-off. The Chevrolet Volt includes such a charger.

So rich people are eating the cost of these new, high-end cars (okay, GM made a non-shitty vehicle; I'm impressed); and non-rich people are purchasing them for around $10k-$15k (I actually saw a 2015 Volt with under 5,000 miles for $16k! They're over $30k MSRP!). Essentially, some rich guy bought me a $30,000 car, and I bought the other $11,000. I got my last car (a 2004 Mazda 3) for $14,000.

The total pollution produced by a Chevy Volt is lower than the total pollution produced by a Toyota Prius, including its total manufacture and electrical refueling. My utility offers me EV charging rates with 3.8 cents distribution, plus taxes, plus 20 cents per kWh peak electrical rate and 9.3 cents per kWh off-peak; I currently pay 8.79 cents per kWh at all times (no off-peak advantage) to an electrical supplier who ensures generation of 100% solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal for every kWh I consume, which is less than the off-peak rate. My total current electricity cost is 15 cents per kWh, versus EV rates (using 70% coal, 5% oil, and a lot of natural gas) of 15.51 cents per kWh.

Currently I'm driving on 100% clean energy. The Generation 1 Voltec platform, from 2011 vehicles, has seen regular lifecycles in excess of 90% electrical miles and 100,000 miles, including several samples exceeding

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[OrangeTide]

That they create at initial manufacture, and create again when the materials are reclaimed.

The usual sort of paper-mill like pollution at the factory, NaHS (Sodium hydrosulfide) being the obvious one used in recycling a battery for its metals (cobalt especially).

But you're damned no matter what you do, even if you walk to work calories you took in order to have energy to walk has some environmental cost. It's a matter of degrees. Riding a solid rocket engine to work would be one of the least environmentally friendly thing you could do, taking a bicycle might be the most friendly often not practical. A hydrogen fuel cell, while is not very energy efficient, is theoretically cleaner than a Li-Ion / Li-FE in terms of production. (a fuel cell is good for about 5,000 hours of operation, similar to a Tesla battery pack).

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[cheesybagel]

Yeah diesel is pretty bad. Yet the life expectancy in the USA is lower than in the EU. So I guess it didn't turn out to be that bad.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[OrangeTide]

People driving beaters in my home town don't have $11k, nor the credit to finance such a purchase. They buy cars for under $2k and drive them for 10-15 years.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Overzeetop]

Strangely enough, walking to work is one of the least environmentally friendly forms of transportation. Even if you got all of your calories from sustainably farmed, vegetable based foods, humans are just abysmal when it comes to efficiency. It's why I laugh when any of my friends brings up that 5 Hour Energy crackpot who thinks he can power the third world with bicycle based generators. The food required would cost more than buying a generator or a pack of solar cells and a battery.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[mspohr]

Obligatory Black Mirror:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[drinkypoo]

Yeah diesel is pretty bad. Yet the life expectancy in the USA is lower than in the EU. So I guess it didn't turn out to be that bad.

Diesel isn't bad. It produces more NOx, although that virtually goes away when you use urea injection. But it produces no more soot, and gasoline engines produce finer and thus more dangerous soot.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to comment, "no $2000 car would last 10 to 15 years." Only to realize that I bought my 20-year-old car for that much and have owned it for over ten myself.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if urea injection was commonplace that would be a great solution. However it adds weight, complication, and expense to a car, and most diesels don't have urea injection. In real life, European cities are experiencing horrific smog due to diesel exhaust, and 23,500 people in Britain die each year from it.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[virtig01]

Yeah diesel is pretty bad. Yet the life expectancy in the USA is lower than in the EU. So I guess it didn't turn out to be that bad.

Having high fuel taxes in the EU helps put a damper on fuel use.

A decent comparison can't really be done without adjusting for fuel consumption, population density, and other factors.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah diesel is pretty bad. Yet the life expectancy in the USA is lower than in the EU. So I guess it didn't turn out to be that bad.

Of course, this must be true because air pollution is the only possible cause of death.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[OrangeTide]

Well, not lugging 2000 pounds of steel around does give walking certain advantages.

Re: Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's largely not true. Only expensive, in efficient and unsafe cars will be taxed that high. Most cars will get deductions for fuel efficiency, safety equipment, etc.
See a table someone has compiled for top 20 sold cars in 2014 https://i.imgur.com/60de1O6.png

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume that the person who drives to work also doesn't drive to the gym to burn the same calories.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

My colleague has an Opel Ampera, which is the European version of the Chevrolet Volt. His car consumes 11 liter / 100 kilometer on his daily commute of 180 kilometer. The first 80 kilometer his car is more fuel efficient then the gasoline alternative, unfortunately the vast majority of his ride he has to drive on the 'extender'. My 14 year old car does 6 liter / 100 kilometer on my daily commute of 240 kilometer. The biggest problem with this situation is that my colleagues car is heavily subsidized because it is 'green'. In practice however he would be more 'green' if he bought the same car as me.

Politicians are fast to introduce taxes and give subsidies. Norway is a prime example how government initiative can steer the car market. But with an average wage of 19,000 euro, our country can't do the same. People who pull down the average wage are people like me who have to do long commutes and often get late to work (like today, I just arrived at 9:40 while I left home at 4 in the morning. Almost 6 hours of stop and go traffic, 3 hours longer than normal. This is very good for the concentration, I can't even focus on my work thanks to the stress...). I'm still above average wage, but with only 28,000 euro a year I'm well below the average of 64,000 euro that people with the same education earn.
In all the struggle about equality between sexes, races, religions, the government and human right activists completely ignored and allowed the discrimination based on the place you were born in your own country. With my low wage I can't afford a living close to my work. Without living close to my work, I can't earn the wage to be able to afford such a home.
 
The solution to our climate crisis is not to continue our society like we did in the past but with electric cars and wind mills and solar panels instead of gas burners and coal plants, but a more decentralized organization of our society. I live in a village where the vast majority of people are office workers, but we all have to travel more then 100 kilometer to our work. Why not build an office block near our village so we can all go on bike? Why wouldn't we be able to use long distant communication? Why wouldn't we be able to work in smaller teams for an international organization? Now I've to travel 120 kilometer to sit behind a desk and use email, instant messaging and voice over IP to communicate with my colleagues. Why wouldn't I be able to do this from a decentralized office, or even from home?
 
Well it is easier to tax and subsidize cars promoted by talking heads. When Arnold Schwarzenegger came to talk about green energy, all politicians were like teenagers waiting to shake hands. Arnold talked about his green way of living. His Hummer is powered by gas instead of gasoline, his swimming pool is using solar panels to heat the water. Yeah, very green. My non existing Hummer and non existing swimming pool don't use any energy, but he is green and I'm a polluter. Last year Elon Musk came to promote his electric car. Politicians of all parties were so exited to drive in a Tesla. They were as happy as small children with a lollypop. The minister already promised a 125 million subsidy because "Tesla is the solution for all our traffic problems". Unfortunately for this minister, our neighboring country promised 200 million, and Elon seemed to be more exited about 200 million then about 125 million.

But when you dare to criticize the current bad situation where I can't do anything else than pollute by my long commute because the only alternative to the work with a long commute is to sit home on social welfare, people are fast to put the label 'climate change denier' on my head. And when you dare to criticize the solutions offered by current politicians and leaders in the green industry, then you are all of the sudden a 'extreme right' or 'alt right' person and even called a racist...

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[jandersen]

I suppose they could really help the working man by getting rid of environmental controls altogether. It's a balance

Like pissing yourself to keep warm, it is something that works in the short term only. What would really help everybody is increasing competition, by requiring all car manufacturers to make their parts universally compatible - by which I mean that you should be able to interchange parts for the same function across all brands. As it is now, they go out of their way to design all parts of cars in such a way that they have a monopoly on spare parts. Monopolies hurt consumers, especially the less well off.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[serviscope_minor]

Strangely enough, walking to work is one of the least environmentally friendly forms of transportation. Even if you got all of your calories from sustainably farmed, vegetable based foods, humans are just abysmal when it comes to efficiency.

You are mistaken. One reason humans are bad at efficiency is we burn a LOT just to keep our body warm, our brain alive and our organs ticking over. That's actually where you burn the majority of your energy by quite a wide margin unless you're doing something like hiking to the South Pole. The thing is, you're going to be burning that whether you're walking or not. There's also the thing that walking doesn't emit PM10s, NOx or any other nasties. The food production might, but it's not done in the cities where lots of people are breathing it.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[jandersen]

I'm glad the US didn't go the way of Europe and encourage cheap, high-polluting diesel cars.

To be fair, though, Europe did that because the tests showed diesel cars to be less polluting and more economic than petrol cars. Where they have been stupid was not in making that decision, but in trusting the industry to self-regulate and be honest, which they invariably turn out not to be. This is just one more example of why it isn't a good idea to simply deregulate without thinking. It would be great if governments would be guided by evidence rather than ideology and religious belief.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe never encouraged cheap, high-polluting diesel cars.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Smog is predominantly due to other pollution sources than cars.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Even while cheating diesel cars are still much cleaner than petrol cars. The common cheats involve more of the relatively (compared to other pollutants) harmless NOx, but not more of any of the nasty stuff (particulates, VOCs, carbon monoxide), all of which are produced more by petrol engines than by diesel engines. In fact, in real-world measurements, current petrol cars produce around an order of magnitude more ultra-fine particulates than current diesel cars.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, if urea injection was commonplace that would be a great solution. However it adds weight, complication, and expense to a car, and most diesels don't have urea injection.

You mean, they don't in Europe. But if they simply mandated US-like levels of emissions for diesels, the manufacturers basically would have had to use them, and today they'd either have less diesels or more urea injection. Don't believe the bullshit about urea injection being expensive, either. It ain't. That "cost" that they talk about for the system includes development costs, and they're having to pay that now but in the future they're just going to be licking and sticking. They use simple, inexpensive injectors similar to fuel injectors but with lesser requirements.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

You could try to move even further from work. That way you can make a 400 or 500 Km daily commute and reverse common sense even more.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[drinkypoo]

There's also the thing that walking doesn't emit PM10s, NOx or any other nasties. The food production might, but it's not done in the cities where lots of people are breathing it.

Healthy, fit humans are actually pretty efficient walkers. We store energy in our tendons and release it with each step when we walk with a flowing, steady gait. On the other hand, I injured my back replacing the water pump in the cold morning a couple of days ago, and that's really not working for me right now. Walking around currently consumes considerable energy. It's probably still more efficient than using a car, at least if I eat a potato or something. On the other hand, if I'm running on beef jerky... I'd like to see someone actually do the math on that.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[AmiMoJo]

Using 120V mains kinda hobbles EV charging in the US. It's not as bad as Japan where they have 100V, but for comparison a standard European socket is 230V/15A and adds about 15 miles of range per hour.

I imagine faster chargers will become standard. In Europe 3.3kW is the minimum, with 230V/32A giving over 7kW being standard for dedicated charge points. 7kW is ideal because it's easy to supply from a single phase (32A is used for things like electric cookers and water heaters too) and and adds 30-40 miles of range per hour. A typical 2 hour shopping+coffee session will get you 60-80 miles of range, and most people don't want to drive more than an hour just for things like the weekly shop.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Japanese cars are good for 35 years if they're maintained. Cars are often scrapped long before they technically need to be because of the social desire to have a safer or newer looking car.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[AmiMoJo]

You vastly underestimate the longevity of a Tesla battery pack. Say you drove at a constant 70 MPH (unrealistic) for 5000 hours, that would only be 350,000 miles. There are plenty of Tesla drivers with much more than 350k on the clock and well over 90% remaining capacity.

Standard lifetime for a battery is to 80% remaining capacity, which for a Tesla pack using Panasonic cells will be around 900,000 miles. In another few years someone will hit a million in a Model S.

Re: Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[LDAPMAN]

You do realize that virtually all US homes are connected to multiple phases of 120 volt power and have those phases can be connected to outlets providing 240 volts and typically 30 to 60 amps. Nobody has to charge their EV at 120/15.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Gussington]

People driving beaters in my home town don't have $11k, nor the credit to finance such a purchase. They buy cars for under $2k and drive them for 10-15 years.

Since you can't buy a new car for under $2k we'll assume they are buying second hand. And where do you think second hand cars come from?

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[DarkVader]

It doesn't do anything of the sort. Virtually every house in the US has 240V available. Most houses have 200A service.

Sure, if you're plugging in to a 120V wall outlet with the charger that comes with the car, it's a bit slow (and it's actually what I do, it charges my Ford C-Max quite nicely overnight) but if I needed faster charging it would take me maybe a couple hours to pull a 240V circuit to a L2 EVSE, and it wouldn't be any harder for me to pull a 50A circuit than a 30A circuit.

Most days, the 15-20 miles of range I get on battery is enough. I'd like to have one of the new Volts, 53 miles would keep me running on electricity almost all the time, but the C-Max was only $10k.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely enough, walking to work is one of the least environmentally friendly forms of transportation.

Wrong. Humans are not as energy-efficient as a car - but the food we eat is necessary anyway. (And unlike the car, we are not a means to an end. We are the ultimate goal, so we're not disposable.) If you walk to work, you don't add other pollution on top of what you need to stay alive anyway. Those who walk (or bicycle) to work don't need a gym to stay fit - a "workout" burns calories uselessly, while walking to work is useful.

Also, walking to work does not scale well, so it forces a very short distance to work. A car allows 100x that distance but pollute more if you actually use that opportunity.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Frederic54]

> I just bought a 2013 Chevrolet Vol for $11,000t

You are lucky, this does not exist in Canada, I found a 2012 Volt for $14000 and 80'000 miles and that's it...
I finally bought a Sonata Hybrid 2013 with 25'000 miles for the same price, not that bad, but in full EV mode at 60mph range is about 3 miles :)

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't drive so my math is different (an older volvo wagon for hauling dogs, supplies, and road trips). But I too will be trying to put up a 6kW solar array soon and going full heat pump. I am curious about your costs. I have found wholesale I will spend about 9K for a solar edge solution. I am waiting for their new inverter tech. You must be counting the ITC credit on your costs? If not what panels / inverter / racking are you considering that get you costs so low? I'd pretty much like to stick with one of the 4 top CN PV manufacturers and solar edge.

Re: Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, actually, they usually come from the middle class, but Obama really did a brilliant job of fucking poor people with cash for clunkers, which took a huge chunk of good, serviceable cars out of the market. That doubled he cost of low-end used cars, forcing the remains of even older, more polluting cars onto the road for an extra 3.2 years on average. The gutting of the middle class sure hasn't helped any. That's why we're starting to see a lot of luxury rattle traps on the road now; only rich people could afford new cars for about a decade, and that's what's there for used cars. This isn't good for the environment and has been particularly bad for the poor.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

In Norway the price of a new Nissan Micra starts at 166 250kr (20 000$)
A decent used car might be half that.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[AmiMoJo]

What I mean is, you can't just roll up at your friend's house and charge at 3.3kW because if they have suitable sockets they will be 120V.

Dedicated chargers are not particularly expensive, but still more so than a basic domestic socket. Some car parks and businesses have installed outdoor mains sockets for car charging and other uses. EV owners use them to run pressure washers and stuff like that.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Even many cars with SCR (urea injection) systems use them only a fraction of the time. Officially to protect components, in practice mostly to make sure the small urea tank only needs to be topped up every 15 000km or even less often.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[thegarbz]

We should probably start taxing the batteries because of the pollution they currently create.

We're already applying the appropriate tax rate.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[thegarbz]

People driving beaters in my home town don't have $11k, nor the credit to finance such a purchase. They buy cars for under $2k and drive them for 10-15 years.

Thanks for the edge case. When 70% of Americans drive electric vehicles we can start addressing those edge cases too.

Re: Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd do the math for you but you're so abysmally wrong about the transportation infrastructure that I will let you sort it out yourself.

Hint: Bus lanes are not arbitrarily bad, nor are other dedicated purpose lanes. Traffic is a complex system and, I assure you, you have no idea what you speak of. To be fair, most people do not as it is not their domain. However, I'd never presume to tell you how to be a system administrator not would I attempt to speak authoritatively on the subject.

Re: Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! I love your writing style.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually, if the car had more than 100 miles of range, I could keep it topped up with night time charging. Generally speaking, if I get home as late as 10pm and run this at 120V 12A until 8am, that puts 40 miles on the car; if I drove 40 miles every day in a Mazda 3, I'd have to refuel it every 6 days, at a cost of $158/month. I spent $50/month on fuel and refueled every 12-16 days; I drive about 30 miles on the average day.

I'll drop in a 240V circuit because, at 3.3kW, that bumps me 10 miles instead of 4 miles of range per hour of charging. If I get home from work at 5pm and then leave at 6pm to go shopping, I have 20 miles of range instead of 10. With the Generation 2 Volt, I'd have 30 miles of range when I got home anyway, since it carries 58 miles of range instead of 38.

US power is center-tapped. There's a 240V transformer on the pole that feeds the house, and a wire fed from the center of the secondary. Peak to center tap from either side is equidistant, and the voltage state is essentially the ground reference for the transformer on the center wire. That's our neutral, and either wire to neutral is 120V. 240V is just the full high-voltage off the transformer.

Imagine if there was no center tap.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes, and people who can afford an $11k car aren't the rich and famous top-1%, either. I can actually afford to buy a $40k car, and I make $77k; the average purchase price for cars tended to hover around 56% of income up through 2000, last I looked (back as far as the 1950s). I actually considered buying a $35,000 car, and would have needed about 5 months to save up a down payment to get me under $300/month payments--that is, $15k purchase price. If you make $32k/year ($16/hr), that's a car payment representing around 11% of your income.

The median income is $27/hr, dude. Not everyone makes minimum wage; and many people who can afford a $15k car can't afford a $42k car.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, charging at a friend's house is not something I would ever do. For one thing, who would want to carry the cable around all the time?

More useful would be greater availability of Level 3 chargers, although really if you have an EV you just charge it at home overnight, and who cares if it's 110 or 220.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[cheesybagel]

Well someone has to use the diesel. You can't produce 100% gasoline from oil cheaply even if you wanted to. That's not how refineries work. Oil is distilled in fractions and while you can adjust it with hydrogen or carbon injection it isn't particularly cheap either.

The major issue with diesel is the sulfur content (particulate emissions) and its perfectly possible to reduce the sulfur content but you need to do some engine modifications similarly to when gasoline cars switched to unleaded.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[OrangeTide]

beater == second hand in rough shape

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[OrangeTide]

about 70% of car buyers in the US are buying used cars, not new cars. There isn't a huge inventory of used EV, and with questions around the service life of batteries and high replacement costs, I suspect used EVs will not be considered a very good deal by many buyers.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[OrangeTide]

Average American household income is around $55k. Congratulations, you're doing well. And that $77k probably goes further if you don't have kids, or at least are able to split child care duties with a spouse.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[randallman]

Not realizing they pay $2k a year for gas, soo ... over 10 years, that's:

$2k for the purchase
$20k for gas
$?? for maintenance and repairs.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[thegarbz]

So what does the used car market have to do with new cars again? You're missing the point. You're coming up with so many reasons that people won't buy something when the simple fact is that it's not in the plan to get them to do so.

EVs are a trickle down economy. You start with the rich to fund you. You build economies of scale. You work on new cars. THEN you can work on battery replacements, and finally your poor little people on government handouts who can only afford a $1000 car will be buying them too. Second hand $1000 beater EVs.

Focus on the the target market before saying the entire idea won't work for all those other people. They'll get their turn.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[OrangeTide]

the middle class and below aren't buying new cars. Tax breaks on EV, benefits for driving in car pool lanes, etc are applying to people above middle class.

But here's the thing, you don't need to provide tax breaks on EVs.They are already beneficial to their owner. Quiet, lower maintenance, avoid smell gas stations, charging at night is cheaper than buying gas.

It may not be cost effective to buy a used EV if the repairs on them can't be done cheaply. Right now I think the best deal for an EV is to lease one, so you can let the dealership deal with the rather expensive out-of-warranty service these EVs are seeing. Tesla's looking at doing a very long and transferable warranty.

Frankly the typical Tesla driver was driving Audi and BMWs before they switch to EV. And a good quality gas car isn't the primary cause the pollution in big cities. So why incentivize at all?

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

This was solved two decades ago. Diesel has been ultra-low sulphur in Europe more or less universally since the 1990s and in the US since the mid-2000s. Although a few older engines had trouble with near-zero sulphur fuel due to some of the materials used, for the overwhelming majority of engines, the lubricating additives that were introduced simultaneously with the introduction of low-sulphur fuel were sufficient to prevent any problems. However, new engines (especially the emissions control systems) may not work well with fuel that has a higher sulphur content. For this reason, cars and trucks in the US had to use older or modified engine designs until sulphur levels were reduced.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Rust damage tends to make repairs to meet safety inspections prohibitively expensive in older Japanese cars. That's why a 25 year old Japanese car is a rare sight even though 25+ year old German cars are pretty common. Italian and American-owned brands (Ford, Opel) have the same problems, as did French cars in the past, but they got their act together in the 1980s.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

And diesel cars are the only source of air pollution.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Gussington]

beater == second hand in rough shape

Yes I know, and where do they come from?

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[bluefoxlucid]

Average American household income is around $55k

Yes, $27/hr, as I said.

Congratulations, you're doing well.

40% better than the average.

that $77k probably goes further if you don't have kids, or at least are able to split child care duties with a spouse.

That depends. The low-income bar to raise a child to age 18 is somewhere around $140k; the median is often cited at around $1M. The low bar is some $8k/year; the first dependent nets you a $3,000 child care credit for up to 35% of expenses; plus your spouse and child are both dependent deductables ($4,025 each), giving you some $2,000 of reduction there. With $10k of expenses, you can get child care down to around $5k/year or $416/month, representing roughly $7k of salary, when factoring in those deductions; low-income households might get aid, but that's irrelevant here.

So the median household with a spouse and child can afford a car at a price between $20k and $25k, using me as a model.

Do note I look at my accounts and project my next several paychecks and debt management strategies every morning for about 10-15 minutes, along with strategies to make major purchases, reduce my expenses, and so forth. I put $18k into my 401(k) last year and $3,500 into HSA, so I was working with about $54,000 of pre-tax income. I had a room in my house torn down and rebuilt, new insulation, draft elimination, fresh paint, the works, $7,600; my heating bill dropped from 9% more gas used than the 20% most-efficient utility customers fitting my profile in my area to 1% less than their usage.

It's not just brute-force income; I'm strung out on debts, but I'm aware of it and I'm constantly planning and executing to correct that debt. I'm in debt because I take debts as appropriate: I bought a $2,000 motorcycle because I wasn't getting a motorcycle for less than ~$5,000 and the opportunity presented itself, and then my car broke down and I had to scrape together about $1,200 and take an $11,000 loan to get a 2013 Chevrolet Volt (nice car btw). I put my entire tax return on an old loan, and I'll terminate that loan this month or early next month; I'm looking at $5,000-ish for another insulation job to cut about 30% of the remaining heating costs, so I can't just wipe out the car loan or credit cards this year either. I could take $30,000 of loans to do electrical upgrades, add solar panels, buy appliances, and finish some home projects right now; that would be ... an inappropriate amount of uncontrolled financial risk.

Most people do not have six competing financial strategies, four financial contingencies, $25,000 of immediately-available debt if needed, emergency funds, and a daily financial planning session. Most people have things they want to buy and a paycheck coming Friday; by Saturday, they're broke. People at my income level are generally oblivious to the fact that people with one minimum-wage income and two kids somehow manage to pay their rent, car insurance, and heating bill while not starving; they just complain everything's expensive and they're underpaid--while, as you observed, we're making above the average and doing quite well. I'm not handling my finances as well as the minimum-wage single mother across the street.

So they can afford a $25,000 car; they already spent the money on some other bullshit, though. That's okay, since we don't all need to run out right now and buy $25,000 cars.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[thegarbz]

But here's the thing, you don't need to provide tax breaks on EVs.

It's a question of speed. Tax and regulation. Two handles governments have to drive policy. If the goal is to increase adoption of EVs they can provide tax breaks, tax the competition, or regulate the competition (or in the cases of many places, all of the above).

You don't need to provide tax brakes if and only if the adoption level is inline with desired policy.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we the rich need a (tax)break too.

Or at least, we want one too.

I'm getting annoyed with all this communist crap. Yes, we get reductions, an the poor hoi palloi doesn't, because they can't afford to buy a car like that. So what? They're paying for a better world that we provide. It's thanks to us they'll be able to use our leftovers a decade later. Yes, their might be costs involved at that time, but beggars can't be choosers.

I'm not getting this incessant socialist snowflake talk. It's so hypocritical. If there were a reduction and tax-benefit for little, cheap, noisy, petrol-driven cars of $2-3000 wouldn't all those poor suckers take advantage of that reduction as well? Of course they would!

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[DarkVader]

Well, if your friend lives close to the edge of your range, it might make a lot of sense to charge there. And if I'd installed a permanent L2 charger at home, I'd leave the cable that came with the car in the car, I know my car has a spot to store it, most others do too. And my friends who live far enough away for it to matter have things like "get an electric car" on their list of things to do as soon as they can afford it, so at some point I wouldn't even need my own cable. So yeah, charging at a friend's place is something I'd do.

And yeah, when I get a pure electric car, L3 availability is going to be important, not so much for daily driving, but for road trips. And if I had a pure electric, I'd definitely install the L2 at home, you're not going to get 300 miles of charge overnight on 120V, and that range is pretty much what it's going to take for me to go pure electric instead of plug in hybrid. I'll never need it most days, but if I'm doing electric only I've gotta cover the outliers. 300 miles should do it, it'll cover days when I've got to travel to surrounding states, and with enough available L3 chargers, I'd be able to do most road trips.

Re:Tax Breaks for the Wealthy

[OrangeTide]

The U.S. Highway System is an example of socialist government program that you probably are fine with having. It is not operated as a for-profit private-owned business.

Everything you don't like isn't automatically "communist". As long as we have a regressive tax system you really don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.

International Woman's Day

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is celebrating with a double ass grab and a breast flick.

With enough tax incentives...

[Kjella]

Norway's got one of the highest car taxes in the world, particularly on heavy, polluting, big engine cars. A base model Ford Mustang will cost you $83k. Make that $136k if you want the V8. When you can buy a Tesla at same price as in the US with no VAT, no car taxes it'll be popular. And hybrids get enough tax breaks to offset most the cost difference, basically you can get one you can plug in and charge for near free at roughly the same price as the gas guzzler only version but with reduced luggage space. And we're not doing it to bring in taxes, we have oil and are rich. We have some kind of eco-Messiah complex thinking what the five million people in Norway do will save the world. I swear, living here sometimes feels like a TV show and you're just waiting for someone to jump out and say you're on hidden camera. Except you're not and we keep coming back for more.

Re:With enough tax incentives...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonderful, that tesla will cost about 1/3 or more rd of an average person's house payment a month and wont drive you to work cause outside of like 3 major cities in the US there is no mass transit worth using

so what the fuck are you suposta do, a used 45mpg 8 year old crackerbox cost's damn near 15 grand, or in otherwords what they cost 8 years ago, lets make the situation worse cause batteries!

Re:With enough tax incentives...

[Nephandus]

Oil. Norway sells shit-tons of oil. Just ignore that like all the europhiles/nordiphiles do.

Re: With enough tax incentives...

[Anonymous Coward]

My typical experience in Norway was when a waitress in a quite posh international hotel came out of nowhere yelling and gesticulating at me because I put more than one spoon of batter in the waffle iron, rudely ignoring the instructions written in Norse.

Re: With enough tax incentives...

[FaxeTheCat]

If that is typical, may i suggest checking out what is available outside of the breakfast room? Lots of nature and nice people.

Re: With enough tax incentives...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be Norwegian, not Norse.

Re:With enough tax incentives...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Norway has oil. That makes no difference for out electric car incentives. We don't subsidize electric cars - those who have one, pay for it in full. We merely tax the competing fossile cars to death. Don't want that tax? - go electric.

I'm not sure where the oil money go. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world - which would be easy to explain by oil money - but so has Sweden and they have no oil . . .

Re:With enough tax incentives...

[thegarbz]

thinking what the five million people in Norway do will save the world

Or maybe they realise pollution is local and the issues facing Paris with smog, or most of Europe with nasty diesel smell is something they want to get away from.

To be honest, I don't give a crap about the world and I think we can probably manage a few degrees climate change, but I can't wait for my local city to go electric, and global warming is not the reason to go electric, local pollution is.

Re:With enough tax incentives...

[UnknowingFool]

Not just tax incentives though. Gas per gallon in Norway right now is about $7. The main reason is that Norway does not import oil and uses its own reserves. Thus oil is limited. So another reason why gasoline or diesel cars are not desirable in Norway

Ridiculous taxes and exemptions will do that

[Crashmarik]

Car Taxes
http://www.expatarrivals.com/n...

Exemptions for electrics

https://electrek.co/2016/11/09...

Re:Ridiculous taxes and exemptions will do that

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Also note that with the entry to 2017 most of the incentives that previously existed for electric cars (written back when Think was the hot new electric to drive) have been removed.

Re:Ridiculous taxes and exemptions will do that

[Gravis Zero]

Ridiculous taxes and exemptions will do that

It's only ridiculous until you begin calculating the cost of actually removing the car's pollution from the environment. After that, it's quite reasonable.

Re:Ridiculous taxes and exemptions will do that

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...

Plants do it for free .
Looks like your calculator doesn't work.

Re:Ridiculous taxes and exemptions will do that

[trawg]

To be a fair comparison I guess this needs to be compared against taxes/exemptions that are applied to the gas industry that keeps normal ICE cars running though, right?

I live in central London where the pollution is simply staggering because of the diesel fumes everywhere. I think huge incentives for electric cars (& disincentives for ICE cars) is something they should be doing basically immediately.

In fact they recently announced a fairly punishing tax on old (pre 2006) cars - £10 per DAY if they're driven in the congestion zone.

Re:Ridiculous taxes and exemptions will do that

[Hognoxious]

I live in central London where the pollution is simply staggering because of the diesel fumes everywhere.

I visited there when diesel cars were a bit of an oddity and the air wasn't exactly like the top of Ben Nevis even then.

I remember scratching my arm for a few seconds and noticing that my nails were absolutely black underneath.

Re:Ridiculous taxes and exemptions will do that

[UnknowingFool]

You're forgetting that high gas prices also do that. Norway gas prices are among the highest in Europe. Europe itself is much higher than the US.

Re:Ridiculous taxes and exemptions will do that

[andydouble07]

You're claiming that plants are a permanent carbon sink?

I wouldn't expect less from

[amightywind]

the holier-than-thou Norwegians. Of course they are a petrostate that exports climate change.

Re:I wouldn't expect less from

[Anonymous Coward]

half of new cars in Norway... does that mean 3 out of 6 cars?

I will not buy an electri car until

[Anonymous Coward]

they can go the same distance as my current gas-powered Honda Accord, which is just under 500 miles tank. Until then, it's not worth it.

Re:I will not buy an electri car until

[Barsteward]

wow.. must be a pain to drive 500 miles every day...

Re:I will not buy an electri car until

[Anonymous Coward]

4 hours there and 4 hours back, not really that unusual of a commute when you live outside of a city. Small price to pay for my huuuuge house.

Re:I will not buy an electri car until

[serviscope_minor]

they can go the same distance as my current gas-powered Honda Accord, which is just under 500 miles tank. Until then, it's not worth it.

I won't buy a silly little gas powered car until I can hitch my house to the back of it and tow it down the highway. Until they can haul 80,000 pounds it's not worth it.

Re:I will not buy an electri car until

[johnsie]

I have the big house... But I know how to use ssh, so I can skip the 8 hour commute.

Re:I will not buy an electri car until

[drinkypoo]

I won't buy a silly little gas powered car until I can hitch my house to the back of it and tow it down the highway. Until they can haul 80,000 pounds it's not worth it.

For people with long commutes, either all employers need to have EV charging or range needs to increase. It's very well to say people shouldn't commute long distances, but many people don't have the means to live nearer work, or they have other reasons to live away from it like they're trying to raise a family but the available work is in a bad place to raise kids, like SF.

I, for one, tend to only go on relatively long drives, and no current EV would suit my needs. I'd really love to own an EV, because I am so seriously tired of wrenching on ICEs (or paying for them to be wrenched on) and want to just get past that. But even if I wanted to pay that much for a vehicle (I don't) they don't get enough range to do what I need them to do.

I'm really looking forward to being able to rent an electric pickup to run errands, someday. That would really be the business. Renting a gas dodge from uhaul was underwhelming. I miss my Ford, too bad it's a Ford and killed itself.

Re:I will not buy an electri car until

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call that a "small price". I'd call that masochism.

Re:I will not buy an electri car until

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially since I hear you can get an even bigger house for a 5 hour commute, a mere 1 hour extra, a small price to pay

Re:I will not buy an electri car until

[Anonymous Coward]

While the mileage you're giving is a little silly, there's another point that makes electric cars a bad deal for some people: The cost.

I bought a brand new gasoline powered car that's getting me 50 mpg right now for under $10,000. I drive to work and back on $10 of fuel (About 200 km).

To go 200 km in an electric car consumes about 40 kWh. Our local utility, by the time you add in all the additional fees, charges about 25 cents per kWh. That's $10 of electricity. There's pressure from the government to force them to charge less (and finance it with debt) so that could go down to $7.50.

So, let's say the $2.50 spread is real.

The cheapest electric car that has reasonable range today is about $25,000. That's $15,000 more. I'll skip interest, because it would just extend the payback time. It will take 6000 trips to save money. Sure, there's fees for oil changes and such with the gasoline car, but I can't imagine they'll shorten that 23 year payback period by 13+ years.

They're just not a good value unless you live somewhere with cheap electricity. Gasoline is cheaper to burn so long as you get a fuel efficient car and drive it like grandma.

Re:I will not buy an electri car until

[shilly]

4 hours there and 4 hours back, not really that unusual of a commute when you live outside of a city

Not really that unusual?? Are you having a larf? I would wager that even in the most flyover of flyover country, an eight hour daily commute is actually *quite* unusual, as in, the sort of commute that fewer than 0.1% of the population would do. As if it were normal to leave the house at 5am, drive 4hours, work till 5pm, and get home at 9pm!!

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Even when electrics are CHEAPER than IC vehicles. Cheaper in both upfront and operating cost half the vehicles sold are not electric or hybrid. That speaks volumes to something being missing from electric transport.

Re:Interesting

[shilly]

Hmm, let's take a wild guess:
1. Market maturity. They're just further behind on the adoption curve
2. The familiarity of an ICE, and the range reassurance that brings
Both of these factors will obviously weaken over time.

While the rest of the world stagnates at 100%

[Doub]

If it's got fuel burning and an electric battery in the same car it's an hybrid, right?

Re:While the rest of the world stagnates at 100%

[Overzeetop]

Only if the battery powers the drive train. So, no. But nice try.

Re:While the rest of the world stagnates at 100%

[rtb61]

That comment would sort of fit along side "I heard a rumour due to Saudi Arabia, electric cars are not considered Halal, so EU citizens better watch out (that would be the apostate Saud in Saudi)'. Oh, yeah, I know that is bad but political correctness has got out of control.

Re:While the rest of the world stagnates at 100%

[quenda]

Only if the battery powers the drive train. So, no. But nice try.

My old manual car could start in gear - enough to get a stalled vehicle off the train tracks.
Stupid modern cars need to be put in neutral before the starter motor will turn.

Re:While the rest of the world stagnates at 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never encountered a car, new or otherwise, that had that feature. Some do require the clutch to be disengaged, though, which makes more sense (and is a good habit generally).

Re:While the rest of the world stagnates at 100%

[quenda]

If you turn the key with gears engaged, a manual car will lurch forward. I'm not sure that is a feature.
But it does count as battery powering the geartrain. Briefly :-)

Re:While the rest of the world stagnates at 100%

[drinkypoo]

If you turn the key with gears engaged, a manual car will lurch forward. I'm not sure that is a feature.

There's a bunch of manual cars with a neutral safety switch now.

Trump says

[fredrated]

there are no electric cars in Norway, and if there were they would use more gasoline and produce more CO2 than gas burning cars. So take that high-and-mighty Norway!

Re:Trump says

[angel'o'sphere]

Hu? Most electricity in Norway comes from Hydro power.
And that most Teslas are old in Norway should be no secret ...

Re:Trump says

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to read the subject. (Writing half your post in the subject is retarded, I know.)

Trump lives in opposite world where all his public statements has to contain at least 50% false statements.

Re:Trump says

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it's not Sweden, where there was a major terrorist attack a couple weeks ago.

Honest Question:

[kaatochacha]

I thought batteries for electric cars performed badly in cold weather. Wouldn't Norway be a place where you wouldn't want to use electric only vehicles?

Re:Honest Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

You can heat the batteries, moreover EV's have a lot of torque, and Norway has a lot of not only fjords, but hills too.

Re:Honest Question:

[angel'o'sphere]

Ever heard about:
a) global warming?
b) golf stream?

Norway is not as cold as one would imagine. Considering that it is 2000km long from north to south there is a great difference between north and south, too.

Re:Honest Question:

[R3d M3rcury]

Ever heard about:
b) golf stream?

I have to admit, I've never heard of Golf Stream until now. If I played golf, it might be interesting.

Gulf stream.

Re:Honest Question:

[Barsteward]

yes, they drop a little in performance but not drastically, gasoline cars also lose a little performance. http://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-re...

Re:Honest Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought batteries for electric cars performed badly in cold weather. Wouldn't Norway be a place where you wouldn't want to use electric only vehicles?

It's not actually that cold in Norway, considering how far North it is. I live in Trondheim in the middle of the country and in January the average temperature was just above freezing. Some interior areas of the country are a lot colder but most of the population lives near the coast where it's not really that cold in the winter.

Re:Honest Question:

[mrvan]

Pretending you don't understand someone because of a trivial mistake doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like a pedantic smart-ass.

This is especially true since we're discussing Norway, so there's a good chance that the GP is Norwegian and it is actually spelled with an "o" in Norwegian and most other Germanic languages. You should appreciate the fact that people from other parts of the world learn your language and contribute to your knowledge of things outside the US, not annoy them with your stupid pedantry.

(and if you actually wanted to help him improve his English, that's very nice of you, but adopting a different tone will help you get your message across in the future...)

Re:Honest Question:

[dunkelfalke]

GP is German, but your point still stands.

Re:Honest Question:

[angel'o'sphere]

And both golf as well as gulf are valid english words :D so no red underlining.
Except on this broken windows 10 installation where every word except "so" and "red" is red underlined (why red is not red underlined is beyond me).

Re:Honest Question:

[orzetto]

Norwegian with electric car here, proud owner of a Leaf since August. No problem experienced this winter, even the days when it was cold enough that if you tried to wash your car the hot water would freeze on impact and keep the dirt in place for a few days (yes I managed to do that).

The problem is not the batteries themselves (though there could be if you hit 40 degrees below zero), but that electric power is used for car heating, which in gas cars is taken from the combustion exhaust. This means that I lose some range in winter, but nothing dramatic; I have seen a drop from 175 to 150 km in estimated full range. I have not adjusted my usage pattern in any way, but older cars without heat pumps and smaller batteries (like the venerable old models of Think) had more problems.

In general, battery cars start much more easily than fuel cars in cold weather: a friend of mine has had a lot more trouble with starting her diesel this winter than me with my battery.

Remarkable GDP per capita is all due to oil?

[GPS Pilot]

Norway has nice standing in the GDP per capita rankings: http://statisticstimes.com/eco...

But, would you agree that this is largely due to oil exports? If oil suddenly became a worthless commodity, would Norway fall to approximately the same place as Sweden in this ranking?

Re:Remarkable GDP per capita is all due to oil?

[Bert64]

Interesting list, there is only one "Korea" on there...

Re:Remarkable GDP per capita is all due to oil?

[shilly]

No, cos they had the excellent sense to put billions into a sovereign wealth fund.

Re:Remarkable GDP per capita is all due to oil?

[__aanfwt7763]

it's not as much oil exports - it's that statistics like that are garbage data, from a mathematical point of view, since it's not normalized to what exactly a country is - and that is a hard thing to do.

here's an example: Bob makes 500k, and declares his house a country. He sells shoes, and is a rockstar at it. Dave across the street sells houses, is also a country, but makes 50k. Does this disparity have anything to do with shoes or houses? No, it's due to garbage data, and an irrelevant sample size.

I'll give you another example: luxembourg, #1, 100k/year income on your shart. usa - 60k/year. completely meaningless comparison. Luxembourg the "country" has 1/5 the population of walmart employees. I'm sure I can find a chunk of NYC or LA or Chicago with 500k people who average way more than "Luxembourg." Do those people make more because of some common thing they do? Hell no. Luxembourg, Switzerland, etc, are too small of a size when you are talking about what countries do. They're not relevant.

"I won't buy an automobile until it can eat hay

[Brannon]

and be bred to create more automobiles." - random moron in 1910.

Re:"I won't buy an automobile until it can eat hay

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between a car and a horse was that a car was cheaper, less polluting (by early 20th century standards when people didn't know yet about the global warming and bad air versus poop on the streets) and lasted a lot longer. While buying a horse might be cheap, feeding it, taking care of it, housing it costs more then the average car. Not only was a car cheaper and less polluting (again by early 20th century standards), it was a lot faster, it had a longer range, you could park it everywhere, you didn't have to worry about a constant supply of food and water, just filling the tank was enough. On top of that a car could even carry a lot more weight. 5 people in a car is no problem, don't try to do the same with a horse. Cary heavy weight? Your 60 horse power car has the power of ... 60 horses.

But it wasn't better in every single way, was it?

[Brannon]

The car had higher initial capital cost, it required special fuel (you couldn't just feed it hay), and it couldn't be bred to create more cars.

Similarly electric cars are more pleasant in some ways: you can charge it at home over night (no more trips to the gas station a couple times a week), less polluting, quieter, quicker, cheaper on a per-mile basis...but they aren't UNIFORMLY better.

Your assumption that a new technology has to be UNIFORMLY better to be successful is silly.

Re:Interesting list

[GPS Pilot]

That is interesting. It's because the source data also has only one Korea.

The source is the International Monetary Fund... a pretty weighty organization. I won't second-guess their list.