Slashdot Mirror
Denmark Is Killing Tesla and Other Electric Cars (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous shares an article: The electric car has dropped out of favor in the country that pioneered renewable energy. Sales in Denmark of Electrically Chargeable Vehicles (ECV), which include plug-in hybrids, plunged 60.5 percent in the first quarter of the year, compared with the first three months of 2016, according to latest data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA). That contrasts with an increase of nearly 80 percent in neighboring Sweden and an average rise of 30 percent in the European Union. Denmark, a global leader in wind power whose own attempt at an electric car in the early 1980s famously flopped, used to be enthralled with them. Its bicycle-loving people bought 5,298 of them in 2015, more than double the amount sold that year in Italy, which has a population more than 10 times the size of Denmark's. The figures suggest clean-energy vehicles still aren't attractive enough to compete without some form of subsidy. However, it turns out that those phenomenal sales figures had as much to do with convenience as with environmental concerns: electric car dealers were for a long time spared the jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine.
It's all about price and market demand? If everyone who can afford an electric car already has one, of course the demand is going to drop.
What drug-induced hallucinations do people teach in business schools? Infinite growth is impossible, once the growth phase is over the target should be a nearly flat equilibrium.
#DeleteFacebook
That Tesla's are shit cars with horrible quality problems.
Why were the subsidies removed?
Cheap, long range EVs are available now (e.g. the Renault Zoe) but I guess there needs to be more choice in the market for them to really sell well on their own. The new Nissan Leaf is due later this year, Tesla Model 3 probably late next year for Europe and a few others.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
electric car dealers were for a long time spared the jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine.
Well, that's impressive... they've developed cars that burn combustion engines as fuel??
There are only so many people that want to put up with the inconvenience of these. Once all those people have one, then of course the market will drop.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Can someone explain *why* a 180% import tax ever existed in the first place? It's not like Denmark has a large domestic auto industry it needs to protect. And I assume the fee is only for cars imported from outside the EU (not Denmark), right? I can't imagine they'd be that interested in artificially propping up the Swedish and German auto industries. I just don't understand this.
Of course the electric vehicles should be subsidized in the form of reduced taxes, but completely eliminating them isn't the right answer either. Lower the duty to something like 20%, remove it for EVs, but still charge VAT for both.
jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine
When someone makes the mistake of suggesting the US apply any sort of import tariff/tax the establishment and their muppets bleat OMG TRADE WAR WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU!!11!.
Meanwhile sovereign countries in Europe have truly confiscatory import taxes (180%?) protecting economies that are celebrated around the world as models of good governance.
Hmm.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
unattractive to consumers without subsidy."
Stop the fucking presses!
The government of Denmark is NOT banning electric cars.
I've been saying this for at least a year now.
Something rotten is going on in Denmark.
I'm an ultra hardcore liberal environmental American expatriate. So, listen to when I'm about to tell you. Electric vehicles suck massive portions of donkey cock. A gasoline powered engine has a tremendous range and can be refueled in just a few minutes. Electric vehicles? Not even close. Period. End of story. A humiliating defeat.
Yeah, yeah. It would be great if modern society revolted and restructured itself around electric vehicles, but it's too late for that. Human nature proves that it won't happen in our lifetime. So, to all you people with your lips firmly wrapped around Elon's disgusting cock, let go and realize that we're a long way off from the utopian transportation world you dream of.
I'm amazed electric cars sell as well as they have done thus far. They are incredibly expensive, generally have a double digit range between multiple hour chargings and every single time you charge that battery you know your maximum range is only going to go down. That's not even mentioning the cable which, unless you park in a garage or inside a gated driveway, is likely to be out in public for any retard to unplug/cut/trip over.
They are a fad and people are beginning to realise that. The people that want one already own one and for everyone else the negatives far outweigh the positives.
Unless you can make an electric car with a 400 mile range, a 10 year battery life capable of over 3500 charge/discharge cycles with zero reduction in charge or output while costing 10k eur then they will never be bought by the masses.
The last couple of years electric cars has been almost tax free in Denmark, but this changed in 2016. Therefore a lot of people bought Tesla's in the end of 2015 and 2016. In 2017 almost none new Tesla's has been sold due to another tax increase from 20% to 40% of the normal registration tax of cars in Denmark.
Source: I'm a Dane and here is the numbers (In danish) http://www.fdm.dk/billeder/Afgifter_paa_elbiler.pdf http://www.business.dk/energi/tesla-har-ikke-solgt-en-eneste-bil-paa-dansk-grund-i-det-nye-aar
The graph explains what happened.
and for the blind:
In the fall of 2015, the Liberal-led government of Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen announced the progressive phasing out of tax breaks on electric cars, citing budget constraints and the desire to level the playing field.
[...]
The new tax regime "completely killed the market," Laerke Flader, head of the Danish Electric Car Alliance, said in a recent interview. "Price really matters."
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Coal and nuclear are mediocre fuel sources. To convert into electrical power, coal requires a high temperature steam generator, and pollution scrubbers. Nuclear requires expensive containment vessels, and difficult waste handling. In contrast, gasoline can provide high efficiency, low pollution power, with a small, cheap engine and catalytic converter.
If gasoline can be replaced by coal or nuclear, I consider it a good thing.
However, it turns out that those phenomenal sales figures had as much to do with convenience as with environmental concerns: electric car dealers were for a long time spared the jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine.
The 2nd half says it was because the giant tax. The first half says it was because of convenience. A giant tax break is not a "convenience".
the jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine.
No, goddammit.
The tax is 105% on the value up to ~$16K, and 150% (used to be 180% until about a year ago) on the value above that. There are also adjustments to reward good fuel economy.
Yes, the tax is high. But please get the numbers right.
Eat the rich.
I don't think EVs are a fad. The batteries are still kind of expensive but the prices are coming down. You don't need a 400 mile range. There's like no one who regularly drives that distance. It would only add extra battery weight, expense, and decrease efficiency for no good reason. I could see a battery rental business becoming available for such users but other than that it makes no sense for most users.
200 miles range is quite enough. The advantages? Much lower fuel cost per mile driven, higher acceleration, and more comfortable driving experience overall.
However, it turns out that those phenomenal sales figures had as much to do with convenience as with environmental concerns: electric car dealers were for a long time spared the jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine.
That's not convenience, that's price.
Nope, no sig
For 150% the price of a Tesla, I'd just drive it without registration and just pay fines for an unlicensed car.
That is, if they could catch me to give me a ticket... :-)
For everyday use without getting stopped, just print up a registration place yourself using a 3D print of a plate, paint it, and drive carefully.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So Europe isn't always better than the USA?
Good to know they've got some really stupid laws and taxation over there.
I know their airport security ain't so great. Been groped plenty leaving Europe for the USA.
"Denmark, a global leader in wind power"
They may be global leader in wind power, but they still use a lot of fossil fuel (coal) for electricity. This in contrast to Sweden which doesn't use fossil fuel, but instead relies on hydro power, nuclear energy, wind power and biofuels
Tesla's are normally very expensive cars so yes it was surprising they sold so well. Still I wouldn't exactly call this a subsidy, seems to be more a tax break because it seems regular gas powered vehicles have a massive tax on them. I own a Volt, and in Ontario-Canada thanks to an actual subsidy of about $7,000 which is similar to the hybrid subsidy that existed for years before it, it became affordable for me. I have absolutely no regrets over it, compared to my Corolla which I also bought new at the time it is so much of a nicer car thou at almost twice the price. Given the choice again I'd do it again!
I think part of the problem is that folks want EVs all at once where a Volt will get you 99% of the way there without the limitations or more than double the cost. Sure it won't do 0-60 in 2 seconds but seriously who drives like that all the time. I run on pure electricity all summer and some gas in the winter or if I cross-country travel.
PHEVs have a double-digit range (e.g. the Volt has 58 miles, 420-ish total). All-electric cars have multi-hunded-mile ranges. Tesla's early vehicles were 180-ish miles; Chevrolet has the 238-mile Bolt.
Charge times on a home charger (220V) at 30A put on about 20-25 range-miles per hour (3-4 miles per kWh; I get 3.3 in the winter and as high as 4.2 in the summer). 220V at 40A gets you 25-35 miles; the popular 9.6kW all-electric on-board for 240V at 40A is 29-36 range-miles per hour. The Bolt can take an 80kW charger; at 40kW, it pulls 120-160 range-miles per hour.
ChargePoint supplies chargers that can easily spit out 130kW (390-520 range-miles per hour) or even up to 700kW, but no cars support that; even using an off-board charge circuit, the TMS generally can't dissipate that much heat. Future EVs capable of accepting high-rate charging will need a liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger and off-board TMS, such that the charging station will couple and begin pumping coolant through a second coolant loop in your TMS radiator, and follow up with an air flush (to push the coolant out).
This would allow a larger radiator or a heat pump to chill the coolant, while your TMS can conduct directly to a liquid cooling loop instead of an air-cooled radiator. The amount of load this can handle is immense: a small counterflow exchanger can easily take in coolant at 140C and bring it to 10C, so the limit is generally based on if you can cycle coolant fast enough to get it to the exchanger before it boils.
Batteries don't degrade as quickly as expected. There are Chevrolet Volts with 300,000 miles and no range loss; Teslas fare less-well due to heavier duty cycles, losing some 4% in 100,000 miles (20% was predicted).
The difference is largely headroom and the BMS, especially TMS. That last 5% on a Lithium battery pushes you from the near-flat voltage curve to a steep voltage curve (e.g. 3.29-3.31V 5%-95%, then when you pass 95% charge you suddenly shoot up until 3.7V at full charge). Unbalanced cell charges cause more strain even within low-stress operating ranges; a BMS will balance the state-of-charge. Likewise, without a TMS, the battery gets really hot and generally experiences severe temperature swings, which is why the Nissan Leaf practically destroys its battery, sometimes losing as much as 40% of its range in 3 years or ~50,000 miles.
I bought my Volt second-hand for $12k and have driven it pretty much only on electricity. These cars will be attractive to the masses when you can get a $21k all-electric Cobalt or Focus instead of having to spend $35k. They'll likely ship 6.6kW chargers, which will give the capacity to come home from most commutes (~30 miles each way, though ~18 miles covers 70% of all commutes) and have the car topped up in an hour or so; high-power onboard chargers will be an option, as it adds a thousand or three to the cost of the car. Long-range drivers will need to go with offboard charging as described, as that's a hell of a lot of heat to dissipate and you don't want to pay an extra $10k to have an enormous charge and cooling circuit you only need on long trips.
It's actually happening faster and more-reliably than I predicted. The pieces are all falling into place.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
electric car dealers were for a long time spared the jaw-dropping import tax of 180 percent that Denmark applies on vehicles fueled by a traditional combustion engine.
Wow, so electric cars get their government approved advantage (a MASSIVE one at that), and their sales drop? What did you think was going to happen? Why do you think the subsidies exist in the first place?
This is what happens when misinformed policy makers mandate unworkable "solutions". The primary goal should have been decreasing emissions from the start, with sound policy to achieve that goal.
For all of their investment in wind, Denmark still isn't very green. Click on the actual green countries to see what they have in common.
Evidently, the parent does not know what he is talking about. It is NOT an import tax and it does not protect the Netherlands' economy. At most, you could argue that it favors cycling and public transportation over car ownership so it distorts the free market, but that's a social choice not an economic one.
slashdot is turning into reddit
It must be Trump's fault!
Hardly anything in that summary is accurate.
Firstly, the nominal tax rate for vehicles is 150 % and that's only for the higher parts of the value of more expensive vehicles. Second, starting in 2016 taxes for electric vehicles started being gradually phased in. As such the tax on electric vehicles went from zero to at most 20 % of the tax on non-electric vehicles in 2016, plus there is a deduction on top of that effectively making anything cheaper than a Tesla still tax free (the tax system is progressive and value based, but the deductions are fixed value).
A lot of vehicles were hoarded towards the end of the zero tax period ending in 2015, making the sales numbers artificially high by displacing sales that might otherwise have come in 2016 to 2015 due to the foreseen tax hike. A lot of those vehicles were bought to subsequently sell for profit once the taxes kicked in, which is evident in that many have since been sold or exported. In 2017 the tax rate rose to 40 %, though through deductions still pretty much only Teslas (and some expensive hybrids) are actually taxed.
Lastly, since late 2016 and all the way up until mid April 2017 there have been very public political discussions about extending the tax breaks for electric vehicles. This means that during that time, only an idiot would have bought an electric car, knowing that it was highly likely for taxes to be cut on them again shortly. This is in fact what happened, and rates were lowered from 40 % back to 20 % for two more years. This makes sales naturally very weak in Q1 2017.
So in short, you can't compare 2015 to 2016 or 2017 without taking into account what happened during that time politically and the market forces that drove the 2015 spike. Basically the article is bad, and you should feel bad. ;)
Source: I drafted the legislation and can read.
Three things :
A. check the title (not TFA, not even the summary, but the title).
It's *Denmark* we're speaking about.
They have invested so much into turbines that in 2015 wind alone accounted for 42% of its electricity needs.
They're *very far* from the US' over reliance on burning fossil. (As are several others among the european countries).
(Don't trust all the propaganda coming out of your PresiDunce entourage about clean coal, or about ecology not being economically feasible)
B. this myth has been debunked over and over, just google it:
even in countries like the US,
despite its strong reliance on burning fossils for electricity,
due to the much better yield of a big fixed plant,
and even if you factor the manufacturing of the car (yes, batteries are bit more complex to produce than a ICE, but on the other hand, manufacturer is only a small part of the total production over the whole lifetime of the vehicle),
in most countries electric cars such as Tesla *are still* worth it.
The only exceptions are a few countries with the most extremely unclean energy production (of the top of my head: China, Inda and Australia, if I'm not mistaken. you can easily google for the results).
So yeah, US Teslas and their batteries aren't as clean as Denmark's once you factor in energy production, but they're still cleaner than ICE.
C. Yes nuke is radioactive.
But the yield of energy per kg of fuel is about millions time better than coal (exact number can be googled or found in wikipedia - around 2 millions I think).
Or another way to put it : a single 1 kg bar of uranium will produce as much energy as a freight train loaded with 2'000 metric tons of coal.
At that crazy difference in amount, even the traces of radioactive isotope in coal start to get significant: Yes, coal is a *lot* less radioactive than uranium, but you're burning such an insanely bigger amount of it, that it ends up releasing lots of radioactive ashes in the environment over its lifetime.
And that only about radioactivity, it's completely ignoring the fact that the crazy amount of pollution you're emitting will cause tons of pulmonary and cardiac diseases, too.
So nuclear incident might look frightening in the TV news flash (because it's sudden and concentrated in a small recognizable region), but coal is the actual big silent insidious killer.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The DK government changed the taxation on electric cars, to make it more equal to gasoline cars. It is a disgrace.
This is some typical stat news: doesn't know what statistics mean
...it could just be market saturation. There's only so many electric cars you can sell until everyone who wants one, has one. And then they're good for a couple years and after that there's the used market (e-cars are slowly coming to the used market. When I first had the thought that a Tesla would be cool, there was a supply of zero on the used market. Last time I checked, there were four or five).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Just ready in my danish news that the tax is bring reduced from 40 to 20 pct now. Strange, does not add up with 180 at all.
They make it sound so bad, then tell you it wasn't even 6,000 cars.
Who cares.