Norway Powers Ahead (Electrically): Over Half New Car Sales Now Electric or Hybrid (reuters.com)

Sales of electric and hybrid cars rose above half of new registrations in Norway in 2017, a record aided by generous subsidies that extended the country's lead in shifting from fossil-fuel engines, data showed on Wednesday. From a report: Pure electric cars and hybrids, which have both battery power and a diesel or petrol motor, accounted for 52 percent of all new car sales last year in Norway against 40 percent in 2016, the independent Norwegian Road Federation (OFV) said. "No one else is close" in terms of a national share of electric cars, OFV chief Oeyvind Solberg Thorsen said. "For the first time we have a fossil-fuel market share below 50 percent." Norway exempts new electric cars from almost all taxes and grants perks that can be worth thousands of dollars a year in terms of free or subsidized parking, re-charging and use of toll roads, ferries and tunnels.

Comments

Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

When your economy is based on extraction of fossil fuels, it's easy to put out public stories about your progressive energy policies and socialist government and laugh all the way to the bank as the checks from the oil wells are deposited.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[mikael]

Norway is diversifying away from oil production and into renewable energies like offshore wind farms and hydroelectric power generation. The same technologies used to make oil rigs and power lines resistant to salt water corrosion can be used for offshore wind farms as well. With a population around 5 million and twice the land area of the UK, they can make fast economic changes. Plus they invested the revenue from the oil industry into a trust fund for the country.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all true but doesn't change the original AC's point: Norway is only able to do so because they made vast amounts of money from Oil.

Presenting them as some kind of ideal "look how great they are, they're the furthest along in the migration to EV's" without explicitly acknowledging that they can only do so because the they extracted giga-tons of carbon from their soil that is now heating up the planet is intellectually dishonest.

Posted AC to conserve the mod point I gave the original AC.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Pinky's Brain]

Not really an example to the world though, the countries with massive oil based trade surpluses and huge amounts of hydro-potential are Norway and Norway.

This is just Norway investing in autarky, it's not really very interesting for the rest of the world. Unless you want to emigrate to Norway, which wouldn't be a bad idea.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[AmiMoJo]

Interesting that in Norway, a country that is sparsely populated in many parts and very cold (which reduces range) a lot of people like EVs. All the rubbish about them being unsuitable for the mass market or countries where you need to travel far or with bad weather is demonstrably wrong.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Norwegians don't buy EVs because they like them, but because they are cheaper due to the incentives and the huge taxes on internal combustion cars.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[MightyMartian]

In other words, they managed to maintain their sovereign wealth fund, rather than blowing it like petrojurisdictions like Venezuela and Alberta did, and now can channel that money into the next generation of energy production and use. You'll note that Saudi Arabia is doing the same thing now, but on an even larger scale.

The fact that major oil producing nations like Saudi Arabia and Norway are clearly planning for a post-oil future ought to tell you something.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Pinky's Brain]

How many households have pure electric (not hybrid) as their only car? I very much doubt it exceeds a single digit percentage.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not look much like planning: without the oil money, where these multi-thousand dollar subsidies per caw would come from?

It is more like hypocritical whitewashing of today's practices, than a long term sustainable thing.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't found statistics in two minutes of looking, but first, overall rates of car ownership are surely lower than in the US, and second, it's not uncommon for families to have just one car.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[mspohr]

Right. Good on them.
Why aren't other oil rich countries doing the same?
Why doesn't the US do the same?
They seem to be smarter and less corrupt than others.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Norway is large only on the map, because of the Mercator projection. In reality it is tiny and disconnected country, with much traffic done by air and sea.

Nothing beats ford f150 , Amy. Just emigrate to US as every sensible Briton did, and get a life there.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[fluffernutter]

Perhaps more Norwegians can afford them as a second car, or perhaps there is nowhere to go. or can't afford to go anywhere anyway.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really "all true" ... Norway isn't really moving towards hydroelectric power, it's been around here for more than a century as the dominant form of power generation. Offshore wind power is still miniscule compared to hydro, which accounts for 99% of electricity production.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Barsteward]

" where these multi-thousand dollar subsidies per caw would come from?" - the same place the fossil fuel subsidies come from?

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Fairyland.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are greatly overestimating the number of households with multiple cars.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[hey!]

Norway is promoting electric vehicles because it has serious air pollution problems. They could address this by banning the use of wood burning, which is popular there, but because they have a lot of renewable energy reserves offering an electric car carrot is more politically feasible than threatening the public with a wood stove stick.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the financial advantage of an electric car in Norway is not in the subsidies for the electric car, but in not having to pay the enormous taxes on internal combustion cars. The net result of taxes and incentives is still far greater than it is in countries with lower taxes on cars.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[jedidiah]

Why doesn't the US do the same? For starters, it doesn't impose crushing taxes on the private ownership of vehicles. If you already own a vehicle in the US, it's because these kinds of policies didn't exist there in the past.

This is Norway choosing to loosen it's iron grip on the free market to favor one particular option and pick a winner.

"Norway loosens oppressive tax regime to benefit electric cars"

It sounds a lot less impressive all around when you acknowledge that Norway is actively sabotaging average citizens that might want a car.

This has a lot less to do with the qualities of electric cars and their ability to compete with conventional ones.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[jedidiah]

It seems like they would be far better off working to wean people off of wood stoves. It seems like the biggest pollution problems would be the dense urban centers rather than the boonies. Managing what's going on in their bigger cities doesn't seem like it would be such an insurmountable problem.

If they don't have a car culture (like LA), then switching to electric isn't going to buy them much there.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[hey!]

Yeah, banning wood stoves is the obvious solution. But getting people to change their behavior is difficult and it takes a long time, even when that behavior is killing them. If you need a quick change in results you need to do the non-obvious as well as the obvious.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[ShanghaiBill]

the same place the fossil fuel subsidies come from?

Norway does not subsidize fossil fuel production or consumption. To the contrary, it is heavily taxed.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[ShanghaiBill]

Why doesn't the US do the same?

Because electric car subsidies are one of the least effective methods to help the environment.

Spending the same amount of money on literacy and contraceptives for 3rd World women will have 100 times the impact over a century.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[blindseer]

Why doesn't the USA do the same? Think about what Norway has and the USA does not. Norway has hydroelectric coming out their ears. The USA does not.

What's green energy and grows all over the USA? Sounds like the start of a joke, and I guess it is. The answer is corn. While Norway has been building hydro dams for practically centuries now the USA had to look for other means to get green energy.

I've heard that burning coal to charge electric cars would be greener than burning gasoline in cars. That's great but that means being able to burn coal. Can we use nuclear power? Of course not, because reasons. Wind power? Sure, that works. Or it does until some fuckwits complain of dead birds.

What about solar power? Well, until about last week solar power was too expensive. It takes time to deploy solar power. We'd also need to keep the fuckwits silent on complaints of disturbing the desert turtles or some shit.

Nuclear power? That's a great idea. Only we have fuckwits complaining.

Not many people complain about corn ethanol though. Sure would be nice to have more of that. What's stopping us? I've heard from people in the industry that it's simple. The ATF is stopping it. Thanks to the holdovers from Prohibition that is the ATF if you want to brew ethanol for fuel, and not risk getting shot for it by government agents, you need an army of lawyers and inspectors to make sure everything is on the level. That costs money, lots of it. It's just easier to burn gasoline.

I'd say that Prohibition set back bio-fuels more than 100 years. The USA might not have hydro power like Norway for their cars but they got corn. The ATF is a joke of an agency, get rid of them and perhaps we'd see some real investment in bio-fuels rather than the government paying them to make the ethanol only to tax and inspect them for doing so.

Maybe corn is not the solution but it sure would be nice to see if it works. Just like with wind, solar, and nuclear, it would be nice to try those too without some government agency looking to shut them down. I guess the EPA is easier to deal with than the ATF, the EPA will fire off lawsuits and fines but the ATF fires with real bullets. Get rid of the fuckwits, or just a government with enough of a spine to ignore them. Then maybe we'll see green energy in the USA.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[mspohr]

Fossil fuels in the US benefit from massive subsidies and get a free ride on the pollution they create. This is a huge market distortion so not exactly a "free market".
Norway rightly taxes fossil fuel cars to make them pay for their pollution and fuel subsidies.
You really have to ask why the US has distorted the "free market" in favor of fossil fuels. (Hint: follow the money)

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[PopeRatzo]

Norway does not subsidize fossil fuel production or consumption.

Yes, they do. And it adds up to a much bigger subsidy than the electric vehicles get.

https://www.earthtrack.net/doc...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[mspohr]

Transportation related CO2 emissions are the greatest single source of climate change. Makes sense to tax fossil fuel cars and subsidize EVs.
(The rest of you comment is irrelevant to this discussion.)

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[mi]

From your (first) link:

These subsidies include a tax reimbursement for exploration expenses, accelerated deductions on investments, research and development grants, the provision of seismic investigations by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, the provision of infrastructure and facilities by Gassco (a state-owned enterprise that operates the gas pipeline grid), and special treatment of the Snøhvit natural gas field in Northern Norway.

In other words, one has to stretch the definition of the term "subsidy" quite a bit to call what Norway is doing that.

adds up to a much bigger subsidy than the electric vehicles get

A falsehood. Even if we stipulate, that each of the enumerated measures constitutes a subsidy, it is not much. From your own link again:

The subsidies constitute around 13 per cent of the oil and gas industry’s total revenue.

On contrast, TFA provides numbers like regular VW Golf selling in Norway for 65% more than it costs to import it, while an electric Golf sells with less than a 1% mark-up. That a subsidy of about 70%, Mr. School Teacher...

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[mspohr]

Solar and wind are cheaper than coal, nuclear, natural gas.
Corn ethanol has been shown to be more expensive and more polluting than oil as well as damaging the environment. It is subsidized to help our poor farmers and is a boondoggle.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[boa]

Transportation related CO2 emissions are the greatest single source of climate change. Makes sense to tax fossil fuel cars and subsidize EVs.
(The rest of you comment is irrelevant to this discussion.)

Transportation is not the greatest single source in the US.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[boa]

Corn ethanol is not very energy efficient. Go for Gen IV nuclear and electric cars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anne Thwacks]

subsidies per caw

Provided by the crows!

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[blindseer]

Let's assume what you say is true, and I won't say that it is or isn't. For now.

How long have we seen solar and wind cheaper than coal? Wind got to be cheaper than coal when? 5 years ago? 10? 25? What about solar? When did that become cheaper than coal? Last week?

In Norway coal never really caught on, hydro was just too cheap to not use. In the USA we've been burning coal for 150 years until the economics shifted. It's going to take time for the electrical industry to shift. A coal power plant is designed to last decades, a century even, no one is just going to throw those away. Not just because they still have to pay off the loans they took out to build them but because it takes time to put up enough windmills so they can shut down that plant and not have the lights go out.

Now I'll say something about the truth of your claims. Nothing is cheaper than natural gas.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[kaatochacha]

I was about to ask that same question, thanks.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[mspohr]

Just about everything is cheaper than natural gas.
https://www.eia.gov/electricit...
The table doesn't include solar and wind but the prices on these have dropped to about 3 cents/kwh ... cheaper than anything

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[blindseer]

Did you even read that chart? Look at the bottom.

Gas Turbine and Small Scale category consists of gas turbine, internal combustion, photovoltaic, and wind plants.

That chart is in mills/kWh. A mill is a tenth of a cent. So, yes, according to that chart wind and solar is quite likely 3 cents/kWh. Also according to that chart nuclear is 2.5 cents/kWh. Fossil steam is not defined on that chart but I assume that lumps coal and natural gas boilers together so we cannot see if coal or natural gas is cheaper from this chart. Hydroelectric is cheapest of all, which is not surprising, but we just can't build more dams unless there is a river that's, wait for it... worth a dam. (See what I did there?)

If we are looking for cheap and "green" energy then, according to the chart you cited, we should build as many dams we can and then build nuclear. As we build more nuclear then we can shut down the expensive energy, like wind and solar.

You may have proven me wrong but that doesn't mean you are right. You just convinced me we should invest in more nuclear power.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[PopeRatzo]

In other words, one has to stretch the definition of the term "subsidy" quite a bit to call what Norway is doing that.

Except, your little excerpt left out the sentence that started that paragraph:

"The report uses the internationally recognized definition of a “subsidy” established by the World Trade Organization (WTO) as a starting point for identifying subsidies for upstream oil and gas activities. "

So, not only is the definition of "subsidy" used in this report not a "stretch", but it's actually the exact same definition used by the entire world.

A falsehood. Even if we stipulate, that each of the enumerated measures constitutes a subsidy, it is not much. From your own link again:

By "not much", do you mean that it's only more than 5 times the subsidies for electric vehicles?

The total subsidies for electric vehicles amount to about $880 million. The subsidies for the oil industry amount to over $4 billion.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite as you describe it.

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about this, so let's try to make a few things clear:

Government side of this:
1) taxes in Norway are used to influence buying and spending. This includes the use of taxes on cars. If you lower the taxation of electric vehicles you promote sales. (You make them comparable in price to ordinary vehicles despite their bigger initial cost).
2) According to the Paris agreement, lowering emissions are required by the participants. Norway has a lot of emissions from transportation by cars. Remove the pollution and you get closer to the goal of the agreement.
3) Benefits are used to make the initial uptake better. This clearly works for the bigger cities as transportation is usually short distances, and the benefits mean more to the daily lives of people here.
4) Improvements to local air quality is important for bigger cities, furthering the desire for a change.
5) As with most European countries, Norway has pledged to stop selling fossile fuel vehicles. The plan is set to have a deadline as of 2025 on sales of fossile fuel vehicles. Several other countries have set their to 2030 and 2035.

User side of this:
1) despite a larger initial cost, upkeep of EVs are cheaper than traditional cars.
2) running a car on electricity is far cheaper than gasoline or diesel.
3) many electric vehicles are very modern with abilities that far surpass their fossile brethren. Especially the multi engine four wheel drive systems are very effective on snow and ice.
4) with the 2025 deadline looming, buying a petrol or diesel car is no longer a safe bet on return of investment. Electric cars have also held up well in regards to depreciation.
5) people don't drive very far 99% of the time. Half the year it is faster, cheaper and safer to just fly. Public transportation is also a strong contender to daily commute, leaving the car to be used for short trips to the store and activities. Most European cities are dense, and there is no need to go far.

So there you go, hope this will clear things up.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

With hindsight Nuclear is the cheapest source of power in Europe. Soon China will have more nuclear power than an other *region* in the world. Most of the growth in nuclear will be in China and if it turns out the nuclear continues to be cheaper than wind and solar China will have a sustaining competitive advantage in electricity pricing as the rest of the world commits ritualized economic suicide led by Japan. http://www.theenergytimes.com/new-utility-business/global-nuclear-surge

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[blindseer]

You'll note that Saudi Arabia is doing the same thing now, but on an even larger scale.

You'll note that Saudi Arabia is planning to build 17 GWe of nuclear power plants in the next 20 years. Total electrical capacity is now about 90 GWe. That's over 15% of their electricity from nuclear power.

Given that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and the relatively youthful crown prince is behind this effort there is a reasonable assurance that this will come to fruition.

The fact that major oil producing nations like Saudi Arabia and Norway are clearly planning for a post-oil future ought to tell you something.

I hear what they are saying, but are you? I did a quick internet search and found there's plenty of nations building nuclear power now to replace fossil fuels. Much like Norway I suspect this it to reduce domestic consumption so they can increase income from oil exports. Take UAE as another example, they plan to meet 1/4 of their expected electrical consumption in 2020 with nuclear power.

Are these nations also investing in wind and solar? Sure, Saudi Arabia has plans for 10 GWe of wind and solar while they build their 16 nuclear power plants. If you want to make points on how nations like Saudi Arabia are investing in carbon free energy then leaving out nuclear power only tells half the story. Or more like 1/3rd.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Venezuela seems to have quite a bit of hydro capacity as well.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Norway is large only on the map, because of the Mercator projection. In reality it is tiny and disconnected country, with much traffic done by air and sea.

Norway is a gigantic country. It's over 320 000 km2.

Nothing beats ford f150

Well, except that they are extremely ugly, inefficient, impractical and you look like an idiot if you drive one. And since they are made by Ford, they probably rust like crazy and have electrical gremlins and a poorly built interior. But otherwise, I suppose they are fine.

Just emigrate to US as every sensible Briton did, and get a life there.

If someone emigrates to the US voluntarily, they are by definition not sensible.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[mi]

By "not much", do you mean that it's only more than 5 times the subsidies for electric vehicles?

That's an absolute figure, which is meaningless to the topic. What is meaningful is the relative figure: what part of the car's price and cost of ownership is subsidized?

You claim to be a teacher, so this should be obvious to you — either you are incompetent or lying (by omission). Or both...

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[MarkRose]

Ever hear of Canada or Russia? Both export far more oil and produce far more hydroelectric power.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[MightyMartian]

Oh Christ, and here goes the nuclear again. Nuclear comes with its own very significant costs. It is not a panacea, and neither, at least with current technologies, is it renewable.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[PopeRatzo]

That's an absolute figure, which is meaningless to the topic.

I think we're done here.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[crimson tsunami]

It's very close in the link you provided,27% vs 29% but that was a few years ago.

Transportation was not quite the greatest single source in America in 2015. Would have been much more honest reply.

Or you could have just linked here instead and shown that it is true. Since 2016 transportation has been the biggest source of CO2 emissions. Partly because of declining electricity use, due to increasing temperatures.

The U.S. transportation sector was the only consumption sector where CO2 emissions increased in 2016. CO2 emissions from the transportation sector increased by 1.9%, largely reflecting emissions from motor gasoline, which increased 1.8% in 2016. Emissions from the transportation sector surpassed those from the power sector during 2016—a trend that persists through at least 2040 in the Reference case projections in EIA’s 2017 Annual Energy Outlook.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[crimson tsunami]

Thats no longer true nowthough.

The U.S. transportation sector was the only consumption sector where CO2 emissions increased in 2016. CO2 emissions from the transportation sector increased by 1.9%, largely reflecting emissions from motor gasoline, which increased 1.8% in 2016. Emissions from the transportation sector surpassed those from the power sector during 2016—a trend that persists through at least 2040 in the Reference case projections in EIA’s 2017 Annual Energy Outlook.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[sfcat]

Transportation related CO2 emissions are the greatest single source of climate change. Makes sense to tax fossil fuel cars and subsidize EVs. (The rest of you comment is irrelevant to this discussion.)

Transportation is not the greatest single source in the US. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...

That's a bit of a misleading breakdown it seems. Transportation is both its own industry and counted in the "industry" category as well. When you use a carbon calculator to see what your choices influence the amount of carbon you create, you will see that individual transportation causes most of your carbon output. Generally its about 1/3 air transport (1 cross country flight a year), 1/3 transport (about 30 mi/day) and 1/3 everything else combined. That mostly stems from the fact that centralized power and industrial utilization of that power are quite efficient. Your ICE car's engine on the other hand is a hugely inefficient as the economies of scale just aren't present to make it practical to create an engine that runs as cleanly. And as cars are so ubiquitous its a hard sector to clean up from a green POV. Subsidies on electric cars make sense as they: 1) work as this article shows, 2) have a high effect, 3) re-balance the market to take into account all the externalized costs created by burning fossil fuels.

Also, on a side note, ICE cars suck, seriously you like having a slow car that handles like shit? Enjoy eating my dust.

Re: Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[dave420]

I like how you ignored the parts of your argument blown out of the water, and then tried to use what's left to appear to have a point. That is really classy, and definitely shows a good argument.

Re:Easy to do for Net Energy Exporting countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny enough, a country that doesn't have a lot of hydro electric power, but a lot of oil money, is doing the same:
https://www.reuters.com/article/saudi-renewable/saudi-arabia-pushes-ahead-with-renewable-drive-to-diversify-energy-mix-idUSL8N1HP10B

Sure, they have excellent solar energy possibilities, changing strategies. I'm sure the same case can be made for countries with access to wind power, etc...

Then again, it's more fun to make snarky comments than to have to admit our own government is sorely lacking in vision.

well, OK

[cascadingstylesheet]

Norway exempts new electric cars from almost all taxes and grants perks that can be worth thousands of dollars a year in terms of free or subsidized parking, re-charging and use of toll roads, ferries and tunnels.

Well, OK ... if you basically paid me to own one, I'd probably have one too.

Re:well, OK

[Rei]

It's anything but "pays you to own one". It's just that ICE vehicles are super-expensive, while EVs are just "normal priced". The other incentives, like parking, don't amass to that much money on average, and there's no tax deduction or rebate or anything like that (like the US's deduction).

On one hand, the government misses out on all of those sales taxes for EVs. On the other hand, I'm sure that a lot of people were buying a car specifically because they could afford an EV and wouldn't have purchased a vehicle otherwise.

Probably the biggest reason Norway is in front is that their per-capita incomes are so high - they spend more on vehicles, period, and EVs compete far better on the high end than the low end (although that inflection point keeps dropping). Aka, adding more electric motor power is a lot cheaper than adding more gasoline power, but batteries are a relatively fixed cost. In Iceland, our incentives aren't much different from Norway's, but we're only up to 20% adoption rates (that said, part of that is also due to how terrible our EV infrastructure is; Norway's is awesome, and keeps getting better).

Re:well, OK

[ThosLives]

They also only talk about percentage, not absolute numbers. The article does mention that Norway only has a population of 5.3 million though.

This shows they Norway only has a market for about 200k vehicles per year.

The US market is about 17600k vehicles per year for comparison. This suggests that the US has almost 200k electric vehicles a year sold - so a greater total number than Norway.

So I guess the US is not doing too bad in aggregate, even without crazy subsidies, but we're doing really poorly as a market share.

Re:well, OK

[fluffernutter]

So in other words, they can afford an EV to use as a second car and still have an ICE reliable enough to go on a longer trip with. I wonder how many of them *travel* with their EV? I wonder how many wouldn't have purchased a second car at all without juicy EV subsidies that might not last forever.

Re:well, OK

[Anonymous Coward]

No, EVs are discounted. ICEs are the baseline. A Tesla Model S, btw, produces 17.5 tons of CO2 from the manufacturing process of the batteries, before the car even hits the road. So EVs are just a major inconvenience which don't solve anything. Meanwhile, Boeing worked with the University of Abu Dabi to produce ethanol that can grow in the Sahara Desert and be watered with salt water. In essence, the Sahara can be turned into a giant carbon sink, making that V12 Ferrari better for the environment than anything else out there. Count me out of the knee jerk EV movement.

http://energypost.eu/exclusive-report-boeing-reveals-biggest-breakthrough-biofuels-ever/

Re:well, OK

[Billy the Mountain]

Looks like Sweden and Finland are trying to create demand for electric vehicles. The combined population of those two countries is ~15 million. This would be great for increasing demand for batteries that work well in cold weather.

Re:well, OK

[Rei]

No, ICEs face huge taxes and EVs avoid them, like I explicitly stated.

No, a Tesla does not produce 17,5 tonnes of CO2 to manufacture. That was not a peer-reviewed "study" and was based on data that was never valid let alone currently valid. More to the point, Tesla is moving toward having their production entirely solar powered.

The problem with watering with saltwater is that you leave the salts behind in your soil. And basically turn it into a salt pan. And nothing grows on salt pans. Forget the problems with biofuels in general, that right there is a showstopper.

Re:well, OK

[Rei]

As a general rule, Tesla owners tend to put as many or more miles on them per year as the national average.

Re:well, OK

[hey!]

An alternative solution would be to charge people what their internal combustion engine costs and let the market decide between ICE and electric. Then you could let the market decide the right mix of ICE and electric vehicles.

The thing is people would never stand for paying the true cost of their ICE vehicles.

Re:well, OK

[Doctor Memory]

Probably the biggest reason Norway is in front is that their per-capita incomes are so high

Yeah, but they have high tax rates to match (personal income taxes are over 50%). That's another big reason why Norway can afford this kind of largesse.

Re:well, OK

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Well, OK ... if you basically paid me to own one, I'd probably have one too.

This is true, but once you get started, you might find that you actually like or even love electric cars. I got a 3 year lease on a Nissan Leaf to use as a daily commute to work car (over 40 miles in total for going to work and coming back). I loved having an electric car. It cost me about $1 a day in electricity to drive it. My friends loved riding in the car and my (at the time) girlfriend loved riding in it too. I have relatives I need to see who moved away and unfortunately my other car basically died from old age, so an electric car with a range of 85 or so miles per full charge wasn't practical for me to use as an only car. But as range goes up, in a few more years it might be practical for me to go back to an electric car. No oil changes. No gasoline to buy. Fewer engine parts to break down over time. Yeah, I'd definitely go back.

Re:well, OK

[jedidiah]

Except that's 15M people in places that have car ownership on par with places like New York City. It's not really much of an opportunity to drive demand.

Re:well, OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Income taxes are not above 50%, though. The very highest tax rate is 46,9%, and that's only for income beyond $112k. I earn about $57k/year and pay about 36% -- which is not trivial, but not _that_ far beyond US tax levels ... and includes healthcare.

Re:well, OK

[Anonymous Coward]

In essence, the Sahara can be turned into a giant carbon sink, making that V12 Ferrari better for the environment than anything else out there.

I'd like to understand how you can make such a statement. Even assuming this ethanol business was true -- watered with saltwater, yeah, right... -- how can a V12 ICE engine be a better option than the much more efficient EV? Use that ethanol at a power plant, producing electricity and then use it for anything you need, rather than burning it in a 30% efficient ICE (theoretical max, based on the Carnot cycle). Face it, EVs are here to stay, because they are a much more efficient alternative. Unless you have to do 700 miles every day, an EV is a better option.

Re:well, OK

[thegarbz]

I wonder how many of them *travel* with their EV?

My guess is all of them? I mean You can literally travel all through the Scandinavian countries on pure EV using only Tesla superchargers and they aren't even the most common charging methods around up there.

We just spent Christmas up at the arctic ocean. While passing Setermoen I couldn't help but notice two Teslas at the supercharger. Now given less than 10% of the only 5million people in Norway inhabit the top 2/3rds of the country, and that Setermoen's population is only a tad over 2000 people like most of the towns up there, I'm going to hazard a guess that those Teslas parked at a truck stop 300km within the arctic circle weren't a bunch of locals.

But sure keep pretending that EV networks aren't built out like they are like you do in every post when you apply your 90s era thinking to the modern state of electric cars and how useful they are.

Re:well, OK

[umghhh]

And Norway produces more hydro-electricty than they consume - meaning the dismal overall electric cars CO2 footprint is in Norway positive and the only negative is the price and range of which government takes care - in form of direct taxes and subsidies as well as subsidies for the network of chargers. This approach has consequences. They can claim they are indeed cleaner than anybody else and keep pointing fingers at say Germans etc. Other than that go ahead and show me that this is beneficial for me. Instead I have government forcing me to pay for your privilege.

In other words Norway while being definitely a leader cannot be given as an example to follow.

Re:well, OK

[kaatochacha]

Who cares if gas cars are base and EVs are discounted, or if gas cars are taxed and EVs aren't: the end result in both cases is Gas cars cost more. You're just arguing over semantics and how you want to feel about it.
It's like paper bags in California: they charge 10 cents for one at the store. They could have easily made it a 10 cent discount to NOT use the bag, but they want you to pay and, most importantly, FEEL GUILTY about that purchase.

Re:well, OK

[fluffernutter]

I dunno, it just seems all highly inconvenient to me. I hope for your sake those Supercharger stations are places you actually want to be.

Re:well, OK

[thegarbz]

And you just failed at reading comprehension. Let me highlight some key parts:

You can literally travel all through the Scandinavian countries on pure EV using only Tesla superchargers and they aren't even the most common charging methods around up there.

Re:well, OK

[sfcat]

This is true, but once you get started, you might find that you actually like or even love electric cars. I got a 3 year lease on a Nissan Leaf to use as a daily commute to work car (over 40 miles in total for going to work and coming back). I loved having an electric car. It cost me about $1 a day in electricity to drive it. My friends loved riding in the car and my (at the time) girlfriend loved riding in it too. I have relatives I need to see who moved away and unfortunately my other car basically died from old age, so an electric car with a range of 85 or so miles per full charge wasn't practical for me to use as an only car. But as range goes up, in a few more years it might be practical for me to go back to an electric car. No oil changes. No gasoline to buy. Fewer engine parts to break down over time. Yeah, I'd definitely go back.

Then buy a Volt. No range issues and still will do almost all of your daily driving on the battery. The Leaf (and most of the other EVs) aren't really practical first cars. The Volt is...

Re:well, OK

[fluffernutter]

.. or wherever you can find a charger. I thought that went without saying.

Not a free market decision

[Tulsa_Time]

"Norway exempts new electric cars from almost all taxes and grants perks that can be worth thousands of dollars a year in terms of free or subsidized parking, re-charging and use of toll roads, ferries and tunnels."

Re:Not a free market decision

[Anonymous Coward]

The view that the free market is always best is short sighted and lame.

Re: Not a free market decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in Norway you either own an electric car or a real gas guzzler like a Land Rover in order to travel in the terrain (many roads are blocked by snow during winter). The tax is the same for all fossil cars, so it's almost the same price to buy a VW Up as a Land Rover.

Re:Not a free market decision

[DogDude]

The "free market" doesn't take into account externalities, such as pollution, so I'm glad that it's NOT a "free market" decision.

Re:Not a free market decision

[Anonymous Coward]

like your mom's penis.

Re: Not a free market decision

[arcade]

The tax is not the same for all fossil cars. Where on earth do you have that from?

There's 3 parts of the "engangsavgift" (one time tax, paid as you buy it):

Weight:
351-1200kg: 26.51NOK/kg
1201-1400kg: 66.05NOK/kg
1401-1500kg: 206.41NOK/kg
> 1500kg: 240.06NOK/kg

CO2 (based on released grams per kilometer):
0-75g: 0NOK
76-100g: 914.7NOK/(g/km)
101-130g: 955.49NOK/(g/km)
131-200g: 2685.98NOK/(g/km)
> 200g: 3449.8NOK/(g/km)

NOX:
70.94NOK per mg/km

You add these together to find your engangsavgift.

The tax easily runs to more than 100.000USD for land rovers.

Re:Not a free market decision

[Anonymous Coward]

BS. The government here in the US trashed property rights in the name of the "common good" thereby allowing pollution. If property rights were respected, the markets would work and pollution would very much be accounted for in prices.

Re:Not a free market decision

[DogDude]

Oh, that's really stupid. How do "property rights" deal with corporate polluters? What, do the people living in a trailer sue General Electric for poisoning their well water?

Re: Not a free market decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense.

Although 4x4/SUV's are more common here than in most European countries, the vast majority of people don't have them. Much more likely to have some VW station wagon, or Toyota mid range car than a "gas guzzling Land Rover".

As for the terrain, where most of the people actually live and drive (that would be the cities and larger towns), the terrain might be a bit hilly, but doesn't require a hulking 4x4 to get around, even in winter. Case in point I got home 20 minutes ago just fine, driving through heavy snow load in my little Honda Jazz.

Additionally the vast majority of the cars on the road, are still petrol or diesel... I've nothing against electrics/hybrids, but please get your facts straight.

Re:Not a free market decision

[MightyMartian]

And how would pollution be accounted for, particularly when in most environments it actually takes time for pollutants to build up to a level where they start a problem? To my mind, a keen capitalist in such a "free market" would busy himself maximizing profits by ignoring pollution, and then walk away once the extent of the damage he had done became evident. And low and behold, that's often what has happened:

Sydney Tar Ponds

The coal and rust belts throughout the industrialized world are filled with these sort of toxic dumps, and guess who is on the hook in most cases for cleaning them up. That's right; the taxpayers within those jurisdictions.

In fact, that's not even the limit of how evil industries can be. The sugar and tobacco industries not only sold products highly dangerous to human health, but used junk science to hide the fact that they were killing people... for decades. And who was left responsible for decades worth of cancers, heart disease, diabetes, and so forth? That's right, the taxpayer (or in the US, in many cases, those who paid health insurance premiums). These companies became some of the most successful companies in the world, raking in vast profits, and letting governments and insurance companies deal with the carnage they were producing.

Sorry mate, your free market is an utter fantasy, a religion as daft as $cientology. Free markets cannot be unconstrained, and there must be regulation in place, because its government's job to look out for the people. I'm all onboard for capitalism and free enterprise, but the idea that some guy who makes thousands of times my hourly wage gives one single fuck about my wellbeing or that somehow he'll feel the need to moderate his company's actions for my best interests is, well, just plain absurd.

Re:Not a free market decision

[Anonymous Coward]

While Oslo has the most Tesla cars per capita, it also has the highest amount of Tesla haters in the world.

One of the perks of driving an electric vehicle is that you are allowed to drive in the bus line, which has now caused to the bus line to be as clogged as the rest of traffic, causing problems for public transportation.

Re: Not a free market decision

[fluffernutter]

The point is, they have a reliable EV, so this says nothing about whether they use their EVs for traveling or not.

Re:Not a free market decision

[jedidiah]

> The "free market" doesn't take into account externalities, such as pollution, so I'm glad that it's NOT a "free market" decision.

What makes you think the externalities are dealt with? You're just kidding yourself that there are none. It's not in your face somewhere you can see it so you don't think it exists.

Besides, Europeans already tax the fuel like crazy. Even if you leave the car itself out of it, you still have a means to directly charge for the relevant "externality".

Re:Not a free market decision

[thegarbz]

There's no such thing as a free market decision then. Every industry has at some point or another been the subject of some form of government subsidy or tax barrier against it.

Re:Not a free market decision

[kaatochacha]

"because its government's job to look out for the people." giggle.
I'm a government employee, and I'll tell you: Most of the people I work with, it's their job to look out for their pension or their position. Just like in a free market. Except the pension part.
Both unconstrained free and unconstrained government have their weak points, which happen to be the evil mirror image of each other.
In one, rich get everything. In the other, "connected" get everything.
The reason I'd lean towards regulated free market is that greed is an understood and known quantity. Someone saying they want things is understandable. Someone saying "I wanna help!" can have many different meanings.

Re:Not a free market decision

[MightyMartian]

Bureaucracies, private or public, tend to have a level of "unresponsiveness", or rather, they have their own particular momentum. But government, at least at the elected level, is a place where I, as a voter, have some say. And yes, it is to government that the citizens ultimately must go if corporations won't listen. It is the right of the people to petition Congress, after all. There's no such right when it comes to a corporate boardroom. Even most shareholders hardly have any rights in that particular venue, but if you're not a shareholder, you have even less.

And ultimately, if you're going to have regulations, then you're going to have to have regulators, and those regulators are going to be government employees. And they are going to have to be empowered, in one form or another, to impose sanctions of some kind on any private interest that violates the regulations. Whether that's pollution, financial malfeasance or other forms of lawbreaking, it's government's job to hold private interests to account.

Re:Not a free market decision

[swillden]

And low and behold, that's often what has happened

Aside: you may (or may not) be interested to know that the phrase is "lo and behold". The "lo" isn't about the height of something, it's an exclamation or interjection from Middle English, likely a shortened form of "look" (which was pronounced more like "loke"). So "lo and behold" means "look and see".

Re:Not a free market decision

[Agripa]

And how would pollution be accounted for, particularly when in most environments it actually takes time for pollutants to build up to a level where they start a problem?

Implement a tax based on the cost of the negative externalities.

To my mind, a keen capitalist in such a "free market" would busy himself maximizing profits by ignoring pollution, and then walk away once the extent of the damage he had done became evident.

Without without a Pigovian tax, they do not ignore the pollution. Instead they buy the government making it a form of rent seeking. And the government is happy to go along with it.

Re:Not a free market decision

[MightyMartian]

The problem is that you have to know what those negative externalities are. In a lot of historical cases, at least, there was little or no data available to help any lawmaker or regulator assess just how much environmental damage was being done. By the time everyone knew just how dangerous these various kinds of toxic dumps or dumping of waste into waterways and so forth were, the damage had already been done.

Of course, even now, where we know that a certain byproduct is causing significant changes, the industry and its supporters are fighting a full on war to prevent any kind of taxation, or heck even regulation, involved in mitigation. The amount of money the fossil fuel industry has spent denying or undermining research and public awareness into AGW demonstrates just how difficult it can be to impose a tax that factors in the negative effects of an industry. Christ, even talking about a sugar tax or regulating the amount of sugar in foods will get the sugar industry and its defenders wrapping themselves in the flag and going on about how they're defending peoples' freedoms.

The problem, as you say, is that governments have all too happily taken their cut from these industries, and have thus made themselves part of the problem, and by allowing these industries to basically buy government complicity, they now find themselves on the back foot when they have to start reigning these industries in.

Re: Not a free market decision

[Anonymous Coward]

... Much more likely to have some VW station wagon, or Toyota mid range car than a "gas guzzling Land Rover".

At 8.4l/100km a "gas guzzling Land Rover" Discovery consumes much less than the 12.0l/100km of a Toyota Tarago (aka Toyota Previa in USA).

Why Norway is Rich

[110010001000]

Norway has a lot of money due to exporting fossil fuels like oil and natural gas. Good job Norway: you are causing global warming.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Norway has a lot of money due to exporting fossil fuels like oil and natural gas. Good job Norway: you are causing global warming.

No, merely enabling others to burn fossil fuel... :)

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no!

Norway only extracted the oil!

It's not their fault that others burned it!

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[svendsen]

Add to that, like a lot of other countries, they externalize their military costs to other countries (i.e USA). What would Norway's social spending be like if they had to also spend money to ensure a proper defense against say Russia?

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[Rei]

Indeed. Oil producers aren't producing oil because they think it's fun. They do so because people want to buy it.

If you want to cut oil consumption, you have to attack demand, not production. Stop production in one place, it just moves elsewhere.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[TechnoCore]

Norway has a lot of money due to exporting fossil fuels like oil and natural gas. Good job Norway: you are causing global warming.

They are alleviating that by going all in on electric, Are you suggesting they should not?

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Only 2/3 as much CO2 as America though.
But 1.5 times China.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[Pinky's Brain]

Developing WMD's isn't all that expensive.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Being part of a defence alliance is not a form externalising military costs. The Norwegians pay for their own military and other NATO members do the same. It's a net benefit for everyone involved.

Re: Why Norway is Rich

[mspohr]

At least they recognize the problem and are trying to do something unlike the US where the Koch brothers run government is subsidizing fossil fools.

Re: Why Norway is Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

They have natural born berserkers like Brevik so Norway can defend itself barenahded.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[angel'o'sphere]

Norway does not need a proper defense against, lets say the Russians.

1)
There is Sweden and Finland between Norway and Russia.

2)
If the US had not made "communism" and "Russia" the number one bad guy on the planet, why would need anyone a defense against them?

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[svendsen]

That would be true if the share of the cost and the amount of military resources provided were equal. Which is not the case.

The US pays the largest part of the NATO budget (source: CNSNEWS) and supplies the largest amount of troops, tanks, planes, etc. (source: wikipedia).

So yes Norway's defense is basically externalized.

Re: Why Norway is Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

As your link shows, the US pays less of NATO's budget per capita than most member states (including Norway). The fact that the US has a ridiculously oversized military is of no benefit to Norway. In fact, American military activity in the Middle East and other regions is one of the primary causes of threats to the security of Norway and other countries.

Norway has a military of appropriate size and capabilities to defend the nation against threats ot can realistically defend against. In order not to need to defend itself in the first place, it is a member of a collective defence alliance, in which it fulfils its obligations. Several Norwegians have given their lives in NATO missions.

Re: Why Norway is Rich

[svendsen]

And in that defense alliance, as the absolute numbers show, Norway contributions are low.. absolute troops (17th), supplies, and money.

So if the US said to NATO, or a specific country, we will no longer offer our money/troops in your defense how would that countries spending have to change to ensure it it had the right size military to defend itself? The military spending would have to increase and therefore either the taxes of that country will go up even more or a lot of the social services would have to shrink.

So again Norway benefits greatly in this alliance that it doesn't contribute much too. Essentially externalizing its defense.

As for the US and all its 800 bases, wars, etc. You won't hear any argument from me.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[jedidiah]

> If the US had not made "communism" and "Russia" the number one bad guy on the planet, why would need anyone a defense against them?

The US didn't do that. The Commintern did.

Also, it was Kruschev that started the cold war with Trump style blustering nonsense.

Re: Why Norway is Rich

[110010001000]

What are they trying to do? Buying Teslas with their oil money??? What a joke.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[110010001000]

They should stop producing oil and natural gas first. Buying a Tesla with money you made selling oil does nothing for the globe.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Norway has a direct border with Russia (and Sweden and Finland too), but sure...
Soviets marched into Norway in 1945 driving the Germans away.

Re: Why Norway is Rich

[mspohr]

Buying Teslas (and Leaf's Prius's, etc.) with oil money. Great idea!
The oil money won't last.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[boa]

1) Norway shares borders with Russia. Sweden does not.
2) Ask any eastern european about Russia and communism. They were occupied by Russia for almost half a decade.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[hipp5]

They should stop producing oil and natural gas first. Buying a Tesla with money you made selling oil does nothing for the globe.

And hand over the business to petrostates who won't buy a Tesla with their profits? The demand for oil and gas is currently there; it doesn't go away just because you stop selling. Might as well fill that demand and use roll the money back into reducing future demand.

Re: Why Norway is Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

And in that defense alliance, as the absolute numbers show, Norway contributions are low.. absolute troops (17th), supplies, and money.

Norways per capita military spending is among the highest in NATO. It's got a huge military for a country of 5.3 million citizens.

So if the US said to NATO, or a specific country, we will no longer offer our money/troops in your defense how would that countries spending have to change to ensure it it had the right size military to defend itself?

Firstly, the US is not offering money or troops to other NATO members and other members have not requested that they do. Secondly, if the US wishes to withdraw from its commitments to NATO, it has no other choice but to withdraw from NATO entirely. This is not in its interests. Close coordination of US, Canadian and Western European security policy is an integral part of the US's long-term safety strategy. Additionally, the US is the only NATO member that has ever invoked Article 5 to request assistance from other NATO members.

The military spending would have to increase and therefore either the taxes of that country will go up even more or a lot of the social services would have to shrink.

You're wrong on multiple accounts. If the US would withdraw from NATO, Norway would still enjoy the protection from all other NATO member states, which is more than sufficient to protect it from any realistic military threats. Even if Norway itself would withdraw from NATO for some reason, I doubt they would feel the need to significantly raise defence spending. For comparison, its somewhat larger neighbour Sweden is not a member of any defence alliance and it spends almost 20% less on its military forces than Norway. Moreover, even a large increase in defence spending wouldn't have to affect taxes or social expenditures significantly, for the simple reason that defence is simply not a very large part of government budget.

So again Norway benefits greatly in this alliance that it doesn't contribute much too. Essentially externalizing its defense.

By that logic, the United States are externalising their defence even more.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[vakuona]

Just about every drop of oil that Norway sells ends up in the atmosphere - a large proportion of it as CO2. If Norway doesn't sell their oil, it doesn't contribute to the CO2 issue.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[sfcat]

Just about every drop of oil that Norway sells ends up in the atmosphere - a large proportion of it as CO2. If Norway doesn't sell their oil, it doesn't contribute to the CO2 issue.

That's an incredibly simplistic way to look at a fungible commodity. All it would really do it shift where the oil is currently coming from and likely increase some really marginal types of oil production which would likely increase total CO2 output. Econ is dismal and boring but it does often keep one from making the problems worse which is likely what your suggestion would do.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[TechnoCore]

They should stop producing oil and natural gas first. Buying a Tesla with money you made selling oil does nothing for the globe.

I don't agree. In a perfect rational world oil & coal energy should be heavily taxed by global carbon tax for example. Then let the shift to greener & more efficient use of energy be solved by the heavy market forces stemming from that.

But that kind of global cooperation to solve these issues seems hard to do right now. Hence it is more efficient to pump that dirty money into clean energy tech to quicken its takeover.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[angel'o'sphere]

1)I suggest to look on a map
2) moron much? Eastern europe did not suffer from the russians, they sufferd from their own cronies. No russian exploited east germany. East german talking heads exploited east german citizzens.

So, again: why should Norway fear 'the russians'? Beccause the russians are as stupid as Napoleon and attack in the far norhh and then walk 4000km from north east to south to conquer Norways ccapital?

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[hipp5]

Just about every drop of oil that Norway sells ends up in the atmosphere - a large proportion of it as CO2.

Agreed.

If Norway doesn't sell their oil, it doesn't contribute to the CO2 issue.

I guess technically that specific oil doesn't get burned, but that doesn't mean the CO2 issue is helped. The would-be buyer of that oil doesn't just say, "oh, you want to keep it in the ground? Guess I don't need oil at all." No, they just turn and get that oil from the tar sands or some other source.

Re:Why Norway is Rich

[angel'o'sphere]

Rofl ... slective truth in history classes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The allied forces divied up the world. Then the western part decided communism is bad and staged a slow war in south america and asia.

The world has not recovered from that after 60 years, and Russia after glasnost and perestroyka is niw stronger than ever, with the USA on a steep decline.

Awesome. Climate change solved

[Anonymous Coward]

We avoided taking drastic actions and the problem got solved anyway. Win-win for everyone (except totalitarians).

My Nissan Leaf in Michigan

[Anonymous Coward]

At the moment, in -14 F weather (with a wind chill), my Leaf will only charge to 75%, with zero bars for battery temperature. My range is below 50 miles. Glad to have a gasoline backup.

Re:My Nissan Leaf in Michigan

[Sporkinum]

Same with me in Illinois with a C-Max energi. Normal electric range is 20-24 miles when warm. Car this morning reported a 15 mile range. Even on gas it is low as normal highway mpg is around 45. Wife drove 100 miles the other day and only got 35. Brutal cold is hard on mileage

Re:My Nissan Leaf in Michigan

[Billy the Mountain]

With Norway going electric, there will be increased demand for batteries that work well in cold weather. Remember that the northern part of Norway is north of the Arctic Circle.

Re:My Nissan Leaf in Michigan

[svirre]

Not many EVs up north though. Distances are too long. Most EVs in norway are clustered ariound the bigger cities both because driving distances are less and because they are excempt from road tolls which are common in the urban centres. The temperatures in these areas are more modereate, though there is little evidence that EVs suffer hugely in the cold. 20-30% reduced range seem to be the norm, but keep in mind that snowy roads and winter tires also degrade range so it is not just about the cold. Also the effect is less on longer drives as the battery comes up to working temperature.

Re:My Nissan Leaf in Michigan

[sfcat]

Not many EVs up north though. Distances are too long. Most EVs in norway are clustered ariound the bigger cities both because driving distances are less and because they are excempt from road tolls which are common in the urban centres. The temperatures in these areas are more modereate, though there is little evidence that EVs suffer hugely in the cold. 20-30% reduced range seem to be the norm, but keep in mind that snowy roads and winter tires also degrade range so it is not just about the cold. Also the effect is less on longer drives as the battery comes up to working temperature.

Most EVs keep their batteries warm all the time to prevent degradation. Its actually quite effective as I've owned 2 EVs and neither have noticeably lost range in the 5 years I've owned the older one. The problem is that this slowly drains power from the battery and in cold weather the drain is magnified. I love EVs but I'm not sure owning them north of the arctic circle is really necessary or that practical both because there are so few people up there and the engineering issues with battery life.

Start subsidy to to eliminate hybrid cars

[jfdavis668]

Since hybrid cars still use fossil fuels, they should start subsidizing electric cars to eliminate hybrids.

Re:Start subsidy to to eliminate hybrid cars

[thegarbz]

Since hybrid cars still use fossil fuels, they should start subsidizing electric cars to eliminate hybrids.

Better idea: Let's use meaningful policies to drive economic change rather than unrealistic stretch goals that kneecap the industry before it even starts.

Practically forced

[edtice1559]

My understanding is that Norway has a 25% tax on new petrol cars. Also taxes on petrol are quite high. I'm pretty green but, at this point, I'm not sure tax incentives to promote hybrids / BEVs make sense. The reality is that a high-end pure electric vehicle is way more fun to drive than one powered by gasoline. A 4 cylinder supercharged engine combined with an electric motor is a much *better* vehicle than a V8. But both are (tens of) thousands of dollars more expensive than a basic gasoline counterpart. It's not clear that the current incentives will lead to the price gap closing. Without that, we'll have to provide the incentives forever or hybrids / BEVs just won't sell.

Re:Practically forced

[hipp5]

It's not clear that the current incentives will lead to the price gap closing.

The price gap is quite clearly on the road to closing. Battery costs are plummeting. To date the drop in battery costs has been used to produce BEVs with greater range at the same price as older models with shorter range. But now that ranges are reaching the point where they are adequate for most people, manufacturers will instead start using savings on battery cost to drop the price of future models compared to today's models.

Re:Practically forced

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the average tax on a new car (non-zero emissions) is on average 105% in Norway.
This means that a new Tesla Model S cost effectively the same as a medium trim Mercedes E class, or BMW 5-series after the tax incentives.

There has been a lot of adjustments to the new car taxes over the years where engine volume and horse powers where heavily taxed in the past, but this has been changed over the last decade to match CO2 emissions instead.
This gave Diesel cars an advantage for a while, but that has been disincentiviced lately with higher road tolls and bans on days of high local pollution.

Re:Practically forced

[nospam007]

" But both are (tens of) thousands of dollars more expensive than a basic gasoline counterpart. "

Only if you ignore the billions of subsidies for the oil industry.
Some countries even conduct wars costing trillions to secure the fuel for those gasoline cars.
Since car owners are also taxpayers, they pay for those too, even those having only electric vehicles.

Re:Practically forced

[edtice1559]

Right, so this doesn't factor into what type of vehicle they buy. Those costs really ought to be reflected in the petrol price. In the case of Norway, though, they have plenty of fossil fuels of their own so really don't incur this cost. But they still tax gasoline very highly. And yet the economics of hybrids aren't working out without additional subsidies. Another poster has commented that the incremental costs of hybrid / BEV are closing and that's good news.

The reason why

[zifn4b]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Given Norway's per capita GDP

[rsilvergun]

is around 70k. This isn't surprising. They've got the money to afford it. Meanwhile in the States the average age of a car is over 10 years

"generous subsidies"

[iggymanz]

so, electric not competitive

have to steal from working people with less income to afford one

nice

Re:"generous subsidies"

[Ksevio]

Sounds like you need to read up on how taxes and government work

Re:"generous subsidies"

[iggymanz]

yes, special interests with lawmakers in their pockets get laws passed to benefit the few at the expense of the many. This is called corporate fascism; it's not new and it's not good.

Re:"generous subsidies"

[Ksevio]

Keep reading! Might also read up on advantages to reducing fossil fuel usage and lowering pollution.

Re:"generous subsidies"

[iggymanz]

Your brain illogically connects unrelated things.

Confiscation of wealth from the majority to subsidize expensive and economically uncompetitive cars for the well-do-to does not achieve reduction of fossil fuel usage nor lowering of pollution.

Alternative energy will be used when it is the superior choice.

Electric cars are not the superior choice right now. They can't compete.

Re:"generous subsidies"

[Ksevio]

Having more electric cars = reduction of fossil fuels and lowering of pollution.

Subsidizing electric cars = more electric cars.

Also, more electric cars means they will become less expensive and benefit from larger scale production.

From price comparison, electric cars sometimes cost more (depends the range you want), but from a societal point of view, they're needed.

STOP RAGGING ON NORWAY

[Anonymous Coward]

It fell from grace so far that it has resorted to using any in-thing P.R. campaign it can, and can you blame it? Just let Norway be!

Going electric

[pjv936]

would be the most effective way for Europe to contain Russia which has shown that it is a danger to Europe.

Re: Going electric

[Anonymous Coward]

What would we do without that country.

It's not sustainable

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not enough Lithium for the world to transition to all electric vehicles. Hydrogen is the answer.

Re:It's not sustainable

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That's debatable since there's about thirty tonnes of lithium per capita on this whole planet. Also, wasting half of your generated energy on the hydrogen cycle doesn't seem wise either.

Re: It's not sustainable

[mspohr]

There's plenty of lithium.
However, no H2 reserves.

Re:It's not sustainable

[angel'o'sphere]

More like 30,000 tons or 30 million tons.
Or are you thinking about the amount you could mine, then you might be right ;D

Re:It's not sustainable

[Anonymous Coward]

Go outside, find a patch of dirt, stand on it. Voila, there is lithium under your feet.

Re:It's not sustainable

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I thought the sea contents of lithium was around 2.3e11 kg, which would make it roughly 3e4 kg per living individual.

Re:It's not sustainable

[nospam007]

"There's not enough Lithium for the world to transition to all electric vehicles."

That's because all those bipolar people are _eating_ it.
We need the Lithium for batteries with 2 poles, not people with 2.

Re:It's not sustainable

[K. S. Kyosuke]

(Eh, should have been 2.3e14 kg, of course, or 2.3e11 tonnes.)

Re:It's not sustainable

[angel'o'sphere]

However most Li is in the earth crust.

Let's all remember...

[argStyopa]

...that Norway is NOT ONLY a fabulously wealthy petro-state, but far more prudent about what they do with the funds than other oil-rich countries.

Using them as an example of anything in terms of social policies is hardly exportable to most other country's circumstances.

Re:Let's all remember...

[angel'o'sphere]

Using them as an example of anything in terms of social policies is hardly exportable to most other country's circumstances.
Of course it is!
The other countries would be exactly the same as Norway if they had done the same politics Norway did after WWII.
But alas ... the bad evil communists ...

Re: Let's all remember...

[mspohr]

Yes, most other Petro states are happy to just keep the ruling class in hookers and blow. Hard to imagine them being socially responsible.

Re:Let's all remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil is 22% of Norway's GDP, compared to 92.5% for Saudi Arabia (for example).

Norway is some way away from the dictionary definition of "petro-state":

petrostate /ptrstet/
noun
1.
(derogatory) a small oil-rich country in which institutions are weak and wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few

Re:Let's all remember...

[argStyopa]

Simply because Norway's income is more diverse doesn't change the fact that they get an enormous amount of "free money" from their oil reserves, and are able to therefore pursue social policies other countries couldn't afford.

They pay you to buy it, so why wouldn't you

[magzteel]

"Norway exempts new electric cars from almost all taxes and grants perks that can be worth thousands of dollars a year in terms of free or subsidized parking, re-charging and use of toll roads, ferries and tunnels."

EV and hybrid cars must be pretty unpopular if they need so many incentives to induce sales.

Re:They pay you to buy it, so why wouldn't you

[umghhh]

They have characteristics that are no very good for their popularity: high price, not so good range and lengthy charging (yes I know you can blastcharge such car too but even then it costs you significant amount of time). If you add to this that any reasonable and well informed to be owner looks at overall footprint such cars have on environment they may just give up buying it. Not in Norway where almost all electricity is produced is hydro and they produce more of it than they use.
As other posters already pointed out Norway is a nice country and a place you would surely like. Their population density and wealth make it a place to be. Only lack of sun is a small problem but hey you can have lamps blowing darkness and melancholia away and all ecologically neutral! The only problem here is :how many other places can do the same? I also wonder how they are going to stop massive immigration that is troubling the countries on the other side of the peninsula and on the other side of Baltic. But this is another subject. The point here is: Norway is almost like Elysium. I hope for them it stays so. I do not see them as an example we all can follow.

Re:They pay you to buy it, so why wouldn't you

[blindseer]

Right, it's almost as if people in congested cities are buying new electric cars to avoid the parking fees that non-EV owners must pay.

I'd buy an electric car tomorrow at almost any price if that meant I could park almost anywhere for free. Oh, and hybrids get this benefit too? Then I'd buy a hybrid but never bother to plug it in. I don't need an expensive charger at home, I'd just keep going to the filling station like I always did. It's like I'm getting paid to not pay the parking fees.

This is considered a success for electric cars? What would a failure look like?

Aggression

[sjbe]

If the US had not made "communism" and "Russia" the number one bad guy on the planet, why would need anyone a defense against them?

Ask Ukraine.

Re:Aggression

[angel'o'sphere]

What has Ukraine to do with Communism?

The thing that surprises me is

[oldgraybeard]

The cold and snow in the area. I grew up on a farm 10 miles from town in northern Wisconsin. Winter was tough at times. And cold does affect battery life and batteries in general.
It is one thing to use an electric car in southern California. Use one 10 miles from town, in 6 inches of snow in near/sub zero temps, spinning out, etc.
Also, if I need to pay 60k+, I will lean toward a Large, Gas Powered, 4 wheel drive, SUV.
But then, I am older and could be set in my ways and maybe don't see the light ;)

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:The thing that surprises me is

[MightyMartian]

Or maybe your usage scenario is atypical. The average commute distance in the United States is about 15 miles one-way https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/s.... So yes, while we can all come up with dozens of scenarios where an EV won't work, at least not with currently available battery technology, the fact is that EVs would likely work for most people.

Re: The thing that surprises me is

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck buying a large gas powered 4-wheel drive SUV for 60k of any currency in Norway.

Re:The thing that surprises me is

[oldgraybeard]

My point was not how I grew up. But sub freezing temps and a snow filled environment ;) and that does happen even in some large urban areas. I am not against electric, I just think there is some work to do yet.
TBH I have lived in the Twin Cities in Minnesota for the last 30 years ;) and still lean toward having a 4 wheel drive vehicle. You have not seen a fun time until you have seen 5+ inches of snow on a week day/night.
The main roads are kept open, but the smaller cars can not get over the bank from the snow plows and every side street has 1-2 cars hung up trying to get to a plowed road.
Just be open minded, America is not a one size fits all ;)

Re:The thing that surprises me is

[flink]

If you are plugging the thing in overnight anyway, couldn't you use the wall current to keep the battery warm while charging? The batteries could warm themselves up before operation if it is cold out and the car is not plugged in. My electric snow blower will do this if it detects the batteries are cold when you ask it to start up.

Re:The thing that surprises me is

[hipp5]

From what I've heard from Tesla Model S drivers, they're actually great winter cars. They're on the heavy end of the scale, with a low centre of mass. Plus all but the cheapest versions have 4WD, each powered by their own electric motor (which the computer can control as necessary to maintain traction). Add in the torque characteristics of the electric motors and you're golden.

Cold can affect batteries, but Tesla has great battery management with active heating and cooling as necessary. You're gonna lose some range to climate control, but even that can be mitigate somewhat by doing things like heating the seats and steering wheel instead of the whole cabin. You can even use the app to tell your car to preheat, using energy from the grid when plugged in.

Re:The thing that surprises me is

[blindseer]

If EVs are so great in the cold then why must the government pile on incentives like free parking, about $10,000 lower taxes on their sales, and more, to sell them?

Maybe EVs aren't so great. Maybe people are putting up with the poor performance of EVs to get the "free" money from the government. ("Free" in quotes because that money comes from their own pockets in taxes they pay.)

Here's an idea. Let's make an electric car that not only performs great in the snow but is cheaper than a comparable ICE powered car. That way we would not need the government to pay people to buy them. Not so easy, is it?

I'm sure that 2018 will be the year of the EV, just like it will be for Linux on the desktop.

Re:The thing that surprises me is

[dave420]

You frequently ask questions which have been answered. You might want to argue from fact and not ignorance - it will yield real arguments and not result in you proudly stating your ignorance for all to see :)

Re:The thing that surprises me is

[hipp5]

Here's an idea. Let's make an electric car that not only performs great in the snow but is cheaper than a comparable ICE powered car. That way we would not need the government to pay people to buy them.

Well yes, that's the idea. But ICE vehicles have 100 years of optimization and supply chains behind them. It's going to take a few years of expensive EVs before we can get to cheap EVs. Already in the past 5 years we've gone from "great" EVs costing $75k down to "great" EVs costing $35k. And it will drop further. That could be done just with market forces (early adopters and all that who don't mind the high cost), but it would be much slower than if there are incentives to encourage more people. Given the many benefits of EVs, both in terms of local air quality and in terms of climate change, there is some pretty good justification to use incentives to speed their adoption.

Re:The thing that surprises me is

[vandamme]

Funny you should write that, I'm looking at buying an EV.

And have Linux on my desktops.

"New" car sales

[tomhath]

In other words, if you want a conventional car/truck you go to Germany and bring it back as a used vehicle instead of buying a new one in Norway.

Re:"New" car sales

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't work, because the tax is for registering the car, not buying the car per se. If you import the car yourself then the taxes apply once you register it with Norwegian license plates. This is mandatory for anyone who lives in Norway and driving a car in Norway.

marginal power

[ishmaelflood]

That greenwash wasn't peer reviewed either. Tesla's batteries are currently built with marginal electricity, so they must be made from deployable power, which is fossil fuel or nukes.

So, what fraction of Norway's cars are EV/Hybrid?

[CrimsonAvenger]

"For the first time we have a fossil-fuel market share below 50 percent."

Note that statement, which refers to new cars SALES. It does NOT refer to the total number of vehicles on the road.

Hell, the USA could brag that EV sales are up 86% over last year's numbers (ok, the year before last, since we don't have numbers for '18 yet). That's even better than Norway's growth rate (40% last year, 52% this year is only a 30% growth rate). Neither number (Norway's or our's) means a hill of beans without some indication of total fraction on the road....

I don't know about Norway, but over here, most cars last ten+ years. So 52% of new cars would represent maybe 5% of all cars on the road. But saying that 5% of your cars are electric (or hybrid - wonder what fraction of the 52% is hybrid) doesn't sound nearly so impressive....

This is great for everyone...

[tomxor]

I don't care about the "free market" or "net energy exporter" arguments, the important thing is that Norway has contributed substantially to electric car sales... This in turn will help accelerate technological improvements and drive cost down through mass production. That is the key catalyst that is needed to make turn a "viable technology" into a widely available and affordable technology.

Re:So, what fraction of Norway's cars are EV/Hybri

[hipp5]

Well you're never going to get to a significant fraction of the cars on the road being EV without a significant fraction of sales being EV. Usable EVs have only been around for a couple of years. Even if 100% of sales had been EV from the day they were released, it would be a while before they represented the majority of cars on the road.

But what this news does suggest is that we're starting to enter the era of runaway EV adoption, and I imagine my 2-year-old daughter will never drive an ICE (if she even drives a car at all).

There is also some speculation that--despite the usual "lifespan" of an ICE car--the transition could actually happen much faster than most people expect. That's because once a critical mass of cars are EV, you lose the infrastructure (gas stations, engine shops) that support ICE cars, driving ever more rapid adoption of EVs. It happened with the conversion of cameras from film to digital. People who bought expensive film cameras and planned to keep them for a decade or more quickly changed their tune once the critical mass of digital was reached and all the film developers started shutting down.

Ever heard of "shell game"?

[knorthern knight]

> Makes sense to tax fossil fuel cars and subsidize EVs.

Not when you need to
1) run a fossil-fueled electric generator
2) put up with line losses getting the electricity to charging sites (or home garages)
3) put up with the inevitable conversion losses during battery-charging (2nd law of thermodynamics)

Re:Ever heard of "shell game"?

[mspohr]

Only fools are building new fossil fool fueled generators.
Line losses are a rounding error.
Charging losses are less than 10%
OTOH, fossil fuel engines waste 75% of the energy input.

You coined a term

[Anonymous Coward]

Those blinkered people who can't see that the future of energy generation is in renewables are "fossil fools"

Obligatory Posts

[CohibaVancouver]

This is Slashdot. Any discussion of electric cars is required to include these obligatory posts -

"My daily commute is 252 miles. Therefore, electric cars are useless to anyone and everyone."

(Variation also acceptable: "Twice a year I drive 600 miles to Phoenix. Therefore, electric cars are useless to anyone and everyone.")

"My electric power comes from coal, therefore all electric cars are more polluting than my Grandpa's 1978 Oldsmobile Cutlass."

"Widespread adoption of electric vehicles will destabilize the grid and require us to build over 9000 coal-power stations"

"EVs will never be economical when the battery only lasts a couple of years and costs $9,999.95 to replace."

Re:Obligatory Posts

[vandamme]

You forgot "EVs don't work in cold weather, because the batteries don't work and there's no heat. They couldn't possibly work in Norway; petrol cars always start no matter how cold it gets."

Sure it's ironic but

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you prefer them to make money from oil and not compensate anything at all? I mean feel free to point out the irony but you make it sound like they are doing something evil.

cold and EV performance

[WillAffleckUW]

In general (and anyone who took Engineering Physics could tell you this), colder temperatures increase the efficiency of battery usage.

Where you may be confused is that people in cold climates tend to use windshield wipers and heaters more frequently. Fossil fuel engines use the waste heat from the car engine to provide this, so it doesn't "cost" any more energy, but battery (EV) cars have to use electricity to provide the heaters and run the wipers. In addition, cold climates tend to correlate to longer periods of darkness, so the electric lights are run more, and sometimes used both internally (to see) and externally (to illuminate) when not in motion.

So, technically, you are not correct that EV are less efficient in the cold. They just are less efficient at wasting most of the energy from their fuel source on heating air.

Re:So, what fraction of Norway's cars are EV/Hybri

[Anonymous Coward]

I strongly suspect that it's not gonna be infrastructure deterioration that kills ICE cars but anti-pollution legislation in big cities.

In Paris you already see measures like 'on even days only cars ending with even number plates can drive and on uneven days only uneven number plates can enter'
in Germany the most polluting cars (indicated with a mandatory sticker on the car)already can't enter city centers.

Once electric car adoption is big enough one of those big cities is gonna ban ICE cars, and withing a couple of years all the other cities will follow. At that point it only takes a couple of years to essentially kill of ICE cars entirely.

Let's do the numbers...

[seshadribpl]

Don't mean to take away credit where it is due, but while on this, how many cars in Norway? Per carsalesbase.com, in 2016, it was 154.603 (yes, that is a decimal, but not meant to be a decimal :). As a comparison, Ford in the US sold 165,301(yes, that is a comma, meant to be a comma).. I guess it is pretty easy for a small country (population) like Norway to put in measures like this - somewhere it also helps that in a few years, Norwegians won't need to work at all, considering income from their reserves which are a mountain pile (err... where did that come from?).