By on January 3, 2019

electrify-america-ev-charging-station, Electrify America

Perhaps — but Norway treats EV owners like royalty.

Battery electric vehicles are not subject to most of that country’s automotive taxes, are subsidized via credits, and are frequently offered free parking and charging points as a way to further encourage drivers to get away from gasoline and diesel. Norway is also working aggressively toward banning all gas-powered vehicles by 2025.

According to Reuters, the strategy is working. The independent Norwegian Road Federation (NRF) said Wednesday that electric cars rose to 31.2 percent of all sales last year. EVs represented 20.8 percent of the country’s overall sales in 2017 and just 5.5 percent in 2013. 

From Reuters:

“It was a small step closer to the 2025 goal,” by which time Norway’s parliament wants all new cars to be emissions-free, Oeyvind Solberg Thorsen, head of the NRF, told a conference.

Still, he cautioned that there was a long way to go since two-thirds of almost 148,000 cars sold in 2018 in Norway were powered by fossil fuel or were hybrids, which have both battery power and an internal combustion engine.

Helping to make this possible is general consensus among Norwegian politicians that sustainable, green energy is the way forward. Only a small faction of right-wing party members seem opposed to the decision during its 2016 announcement, citing the country’s current role as one of Western Europe’s biggest oil producers.

However, they were overshadowed by environmental activists and EV supporters like Elon Musk — who praised Norway’s decision to ban internal combustion vehicles. “Just heard that Norway will ban new sales of fuel cars in 2025,” Musk tweeted in June of 2016. “What an amazingly awesome country. You guys rock!!”

Two years later, nearly a third of all Norwegian new car sales are models incorporating a charging port (either PHEV or BEV). By contrast, similar electric cars only enjoy a 2.2 percent share in China in 2017 and just 1.2 percent take in the United States, according to the International Energy Agency.

However, it’s not all sunshine and roses. Erik Andresen, head of Norway’s car importers’ federation, claims the sudden adoption of electric cars has negatively impacted Norway’s tax revenues, raising questions about future reforms to raise cash from the country’s 5.3 million citizens. The market has also not performed well, overall. New car sales in Norway fell 6.8 percent in 2018, with only pluggable vehicles gaining any ground.

This has led some to argue whether or not Norway’s plan to abolish internal combustion vehicles is even feasible.

The Norwegian Electric Vehicle Association (NEVA), a lobby group hoping to prop up electric adoption, thinks a 100 percent market share is still possible. “We know that charging access is a real barrier … and there’s also a risk that not enough cars become available,” NEVA head Christina Bu said, before adding that some EV customers might have to endure year-long wait times as their vehicles are prepared.

Meanwhile, the Institute of Transport Economics’ (ITE) own research looks less promising. “Strictly speaking I don’t think it’s possible, primarily because too many people don’t have a private parking space and won’t want to buy a plug-in car if they can’t establish a charging point at home,” ITE economist Lasse Fridstroem said. “We may be able to get to a 75 percent [market share], provided that the tax breaks are maintained.”

While this would still require another five years of staggering electric adoption, it doesn’t seem impossible based on the progress Norway has already made. But it doesn’t appear to reflect the trend of the wider world either, which has been far more cautious in embracing electric cars.

[Image: Volkswagen Group]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

136 Comments on “Could Norway’s EV Adoption Signal Our Own Electric Future?...”


  • avatar
    thelaine

    No.

  • avatar
    MoparRocker74

    How about we just ship all of our greenie, socialist utopia leftists over to Norway? They like to hold Norway as the bastion of how leftist policies ‘work’, so just go there rather than further tainting our system here. We’ll trade 1:1 for Norweigians who are opposed to this garbage. Win-win for everyone.

    • 0 avatar
      scott25

      Only if they shift all of their infamously crazy right-wing minority over here

    • 0 avatar
      Lockstops

      Greenie, socialist utopia leftists need hard working non-socialist people to steal from, that’s what they’re drawn to. Not Norway. They don’t want socialist countries, they want the money from non-socialists. They want to take over thriving non-socialist countries and destroy them with their socialism and profiteer from it as long as it lasts.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @Lockstops: The more you post, the less I believe you–especially when I can prove you wrong so many times.

      • 0 avatar
        Whatnext

        You’re a sockpuppet of the dolt that posts the drivel about Tesla charging times, aren’t you. It must be sad to be so afraid of the future.

        • 0 avatar
          Asdf

          If charging times in the future will be as EXTREMELY long as they currently are with Tesla’s vehicles, then there’s every reason to be afraid of the future. Fully charging a vehicle should take five minutes, tops, that’s actually quite a modest requirement considering how long it takes to fill a fuel tank, and there’s no reason why BEVs should take longer than that (except when it comes to retarded people, but they should not be setting the agenda).

  • avatar
    xtoyota

    EV will sell fast as long as you can fully charge the battery as fast as you fill your car with gas.
    Until then forget EV’s

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Wrong.

      You charge your EV at home while you sleep. It doesn’t matter if it charges in 5 minutes or 8 hours.

      This works if you buy an EV with a range that covers your daily driving needs, plus a comfortable fuge factor for the unexpected. For me, the magic number is between 200 and 250 miles.

      There are some niches where gas cars will still make sense. Medical couriers, wide-load escort vehicles, traveling salesmen, and people with landlords who refuse to update their properties will still need old-school explosion-engine cars, and that’s fine. The rest of us can live one step closer to that sci-fi future we’ve always dreamed about.

      To summarize: 15 seconds it takes to plug in the car at night and the 15 seconds it takes to unplug the car in the morning will mean we never have to go to a gas station again. That’s a win!

      • 0 avatar
        Asdf

        You, Sir, are officially a retard. You should be ashamed of yourself for being yet another idiot to parrot the “charge while you sleep” and “it takes X seconds to plug and X seconds to unplug” line.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @Asdf: “You should be ashamed of yourself for being yet another idiot to parrot the “charge while you sleep” and “it takes X seconds to plug and X seconds to unplug” line.”
          — Why? Because it’s true?

        • 0 avatar
          jatz

          People who publicly call others “retard” let us know who the real ones are.

        • 0 avatar
          Whatnext

          You don’t sleep? Or you go cruising around in the middle of the night for…?

          I’d much rather plug my car in overnight at my home than deal with the current hassle of going out of my way to find one of the dwindling number of gas stations to “fuel” my car.

    • 0 avatar
      Asdf

      xtoyota: You’re right, of course. It’s strange how people are unable or unwilling to admit this simple fact.

  • avatar
    spookiness

    The cleverly decided it was smarter to sell their oil than to use it for domestic consumption.

    • 0 avatar
      vehic1

      spookiness: +1. Make $$$ selling it to others for use elsewhere; those people will breathe the most concentrated waste gases and pollutants, and suffer the greater health issues. Here in the US, there are still some old-timers who fear some globalist conspiracy of Y2K, computers, EVs, smartphones, and Elvis.

  • avatar
    jatz

    ICE vehicles keep islamists away; pink pants encourage them.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Congratulations Norway. By banning ICE vehicles by 2025, you will lower global temperatures by 0.000000000000000001°C by 2100.

    • 0 avatar
      SunnyvaleCA

      Norway is one country that should be looking forward to global warming.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      They get to feel virtuous while still getting rich by supplying the world with massive amounts of hydrocarbons. Perfect. It’s like putting a wall around your house while advocating for open borders for your country.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      If they believed in global warming, they would also believe that their oil contributes to it wherever it is consumed. I guess they know they’re full of it and just like controlling brainwashed populations.

      Incidentally, their ‘sovereign wealth’ fund is used to push all sorts of cultural Marxist pestilence on global corporations. Norwegians are among the wealthiest people in the world on paper, but their average citizens live like the rural poor of a forgotten era. Their housing is a step better than improvised. Their diets are indicative of a culture of settling. Their cars are both crummy and extravagant luxuries at the same time. People who look to Norway for direction should just get a fake passport from one of the invading nations and move there.

      • 0 avatar
        Whatnext

        LOL, jealous much? It must be great to feel superior from the comfort of your doublewide.

        • 0 avatar
          ToddAtlasF1

          A doublewide would be an upgrade for a typical Norwegian family. My waterfront condo would be reserved for an especially self righteous government official. That’s what you can do when the government doesn’t decide where all of your money goes.

  • avatar
    Mike-NB2

    Hey! Ol’ salmon pants is back! I missed him!

  • avatar
    spookiness

    It’s not pink or salmon, hasn’t anybody heard of “Nantucket red?”

  • avatar
    stingray65

    The first lesson from Norway is that giving car buyers $30,000 to $100,000 in benefits to buy an electric car only gets 1/3 of car buyers to go EV. The second lesson from Norway is that it becomes very difficult to stop offering people $30 to $100K in EV freebies once they and dealers get used to it. The freebies were supposed to end when EV registrations hit 50,000 cars in 2015, but 100,000 EV sales later they are still in place. The third lesson is that even 100% EV ownership in a country with 5 million people won’t make a bit of environmental difference on a planet with 7+ billion.

    • 0 avatar
      Lockstops

      Especially since switching to EV won’t necessarily reduce your emissions all. It might even be worse. At the very best it’s marginally better than a new ICE car. Marginally. But one thing is for certain: it costs massively more meaning you’re lessening your quality of life and/or are taking away actual advancements to reduce environmental harm.

      It’s crazy to think of the amounts of money spent and cultism spewed on a switch from ‘sinful’ ICE to ‘clean’ EV even though their overall difference in emissions is a few percent at best over many years. A few percent!!! All that money, all that horrible user experience, all that need for government subsidies to get even rudimentary infrastructure in place, and what you get is a car that’s MAYBE a few percent lower in emissions!!

      We all cause CO2 emissions in just about everything we do, and even if EVs were 10-20% less polluting than ICE cars over their lifetime the difference is a drop in the ocean in our overall CO2 emissions in our lives.

      EVs in cold countries where the batteries are inefficient most of the year, charging losses are massive and a huge proportion of what you get into your battery (at that poor efficiency rate from power station to battery) actually goes into heating your battery and your car… Ask me how I know, ask me how much sense my EV made up here near the arctic circle, how horrendously the range dropped in the cold, how little of the energy sucked from the power station actually was used to move my vehicle forward…

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @Lockstops: “Especially since switching to EV won’t necessarily reduce your emissions all. It might even be worse. At the very best it’s marginally better than a new ICE car.”
        — If by “marginally” you mean 50% LESS emissive at the power station than at the ICEs tailpipe, you might be right. But half as much emissions is still better than the “marginal” word you quote.

        https://medium.com/@briankent/moving-from-cradle-to-grave-f990f98acb12

        • 0 avatar
          Lockstops

          You have kept on writing absolute BS, constantly and aggressively. And you don’t even understand the concepts.

          What you’re quoting is only a small piece of the truth. And one source. I’ve already said that to the battery, not at the power station. That’s what matters. Then there’s the contentious numbers on how polluting EVs actually are, and that source seems to very much low-ball that figure. And all the losses are definitely not in that report at all!!

          Your aggressive lashings out are infantile. You’re absolutely wrong: EVs are definitely NOT 50% lower in emissions. That’t the whole issue I’m trying to bring up: fools, and incredibly aggressive fools being WAY OFF on what it actually means for the environment to choose between EV, PHEV and ICE. You have absolutely no idea what amounts of emissions we’re really talking about, no idea what our vehicle emissions compare to in our overall life emissions, and you definitely are aggressively so religious on the subject that of course you would refuse to even consider taking into account alternative investments for the billions spent on EVs or their effect on traffic system safety resulting in a real increase in deaths and injuries (also hospital bills and insurance costs).

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Lockstops: You are intentionally blinding yourself to the truth. The document I linked says, “Cradle to Grave,” that INCLUDES battery manufacture… and yet they’re still less than half as polluting as the most efficient, non-Hybrid ICE. A BEV is approximately 25% less emissive as a Hybrid, which says a lot.

            Moreover, as power generation continues to move away from coal as its primary fuel, emissions from the plants, and therefore the cars, go even lower.

            I’m not the one lashing out aggressively, Lockstops. Look at your own postings and see how condescending you have been to ANY person disagreeing with you.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        @Lockstops:

        Yep, us EV hippies have looked into the environmental impact electric power generation.

        EVs obviously aren’t zero emission in wheel-to-well terms. But they’re better than conventional cars and can be fueled by anything from nuclear to solar.

        Their emissions vary depending on your local electric generation mix but, even with the dirtiest local grid (say Houston, TX), an EV’s emissions are comparable to a Prius.

        Also, EVs are agnostic about their energy source — you can drive it on coal one day, and solar another day, all without buying a new car.

        This is literally in the EV FAQ, though the primary source is scientific studies.

        Yes, we thought of your question, many many years ago. [Eye roll]

        P.S. It’s fine if you happen to like your old-school car or just don’t like change for whatever reason — I’m a car guy, too. I won’t judge you for that — the world needs all kinds to be interesting. But, please read the green car FAQs so that you’re at least aware that you’re beating a dead horse from 20 years ago. I will judge you for a failure to spend 30 seconds on background reading.

    • 0 avatar
      Lockstops

      This is just one quick example:

      And that one doesn’t even touch on the often massive losses in electricity on the way from the power station to the battery, and then how much of the electricity is actually used for other things than moving the car forward… There are studies showing massive percentages of losses (especially in even slightly colder climates and hot climates), but I’m just so tired of these stupid debates that I haven’t saved links or anything. Those who are cultists or too stupid to think rationally won’t get anything out of them or want to anyway.

      (BTW I sold my EV to buy a PHEV. I bought a PHEV instead of ICE just for the huge tax benefits. The ICE is what’s needed in any case, the battery is just there to drop the on-paper numbers so that the government will rob me significantly less even if in reality my car’s emissions are equal to my friends’ equally powerful ICE vehicles.)

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        All great points. And yes, the eco-left is, in fact, a religious cult.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @Lockstops: “And that one doesn’t even touch on the often massive losses in electricity on the way from the power station to the battery,”
        — WHAT “massive losses in electricity on the way from the power station”? You have to go 1000 miles on the grid to realize a 7% loss; that’s hardly massive. The average is far, far less and the total average, power station to battery, is about 12% loss, not “massive” at all!

        • 0 avatar
          Lockstops

          Add charging station losses, charging station to car losses, battery not at the right temperature losses (not too hot, not too cold, has to be _juuust right!!_), preconditioning the battery losses…

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        @Lockstops:
        Yes, electrical transmission losses are accounted for in the well-to-wheel analysis that us green car hippies used to form our opinions.

        I’m glad you too have become aware of this important aspect of our energy infrastructure.

        I’ll give you an additional factor that us green car hippies know about that you may not: batteries do not retain 100% of the energy used to charge charge them. I’ve had paper designs which would have charging losses as high as 30% — which is obviously something I never built.

        And, yes, this is properly accounted for in the wheel-to-well analysis. And EVs are still better.

        These are good questions. They were just answered to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of my engineer-friends nearly 20 years ago. Actually these questions were answered before that — we just learned the answers to these questions in late 2001 and early 2002.

        • 0 avatar
          Lockstops

          No, your claim is wrong. EVs can, in some cases be better. They are very far from always being better than ICE or PHEV, and practically always massively worse than CNG vehicles.

          Even at best when in some cases in some scenarios EVs are ‘better’, it is very doubtful that they are more than a few percent better over their lifetime and the extra costs etc. that they incur could be better invested into more effective means of reducing pollution therefore still making EVs complete nonsense.

          And my point is not that EVs would have to be worse, I mean that even at best EVs are _perhaps marginally_ better, and yet people rave and rage about the subject as if ICE would be ‘dirty’ and EVs ‘clean’. Even thought the difference, at best, is a few percent. And then the people buying EVs are very probably far more polluting in their overall emissions with all their flying around, large luxury homes, etc. etc. So some Tesla owner raving about how they’re saving the planet and an ICE driver is destroying it is absolutely wrong, and most probably and most usually the effect of their lives is worse on the planet than that of the guy driving the ICE vehicle.

          Every single Tesla owner I know emits multiple times the emissions that I do. And I’m not poor or inactive. And I will decrease my emissions soon by a massive amount, far more than a switch from ICE to EV could ever achieve when my new home is complete. Vehicle emissions in my case are maybe 5-10% of my overall emissions. Switching to EV might at best take out 1-2% of that. And would cost at least $10K, which makes it a horrible investment. Lots of people with ICE cars emit even less emissions than me.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Lockstops: The paper I presented elsewhere in this forum proves your entire argument incorrect.

            The only advantages ICE has over BEV right now is refueling time and the ability to go places the BEV can’t. These advantages will gradually be either eliminated or adapted, as almost nobody on a long trip ever takes just five minutes on a fuel stop; they almost always spend 15-30 minutes doing other things while they are stopped.

      • 0 avatar
        Lockstops

        I tried to give a link to a youtube video by Engineering Explained, titled: “Are Electric Cars Worse For The Environment? Myth Busted”. That is very damning towards EVs even thought they were very generous towards EVs and also left out very significant losses especially when the temperature isn’t just exactly right for the cabin and batteries.

        I can’t be bothered to look up the recent articles on charging losses and electric car usage losses in the cold/hot, which IIRC were up to about 30% in cases that are not even rare at all.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @Lockstops: “I can’t be bothered to look up the recent articles…

          — And yet we have bothered to look up articles that refute your arguments. This only makes others wonder who’s actually being truthful here.

          • 0 avatar
            Lockstops

            So you’re a low IQ infantile a-hole? Interesting.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Lockstops: Clearly you have run out of legitimate arguments and have taken to insulting those you cannot refute.

          • 0 avatar
            Lockstops

            Vulpine: you’re a stupid little kid who keeps lying and doesn’t even understand what others are saying.

            It is a FACT that electricity losses are massive to the battery. You are a pathetic, despicable liar who leaves out that battery part in response and just blurts out absolute s**t about losses from power plant to distributing station.

            It is a FACT that BEVs are extremely wasteful when they need to be heated and cooled.

            It is a FACT that BEVs are even at best merely a few percent less polluting than ICEs. On top of that the difference in pollution as a whole, including all our life activities is miniscule.

            But it is a FACT that the cost of spending so much on BEVs is MASSIVE to our societies and economies. So as stated above barely any effect, but MASSIVE cost.

            It is also a fact that heavy BEVs increase injuries and deaths very much. Lots of suffering, but you a-hole cultists don’t care.

            All in all it figures that loser d-heads would rant and rave moronically about such d**less s**t as electric cars. It all just fits in perfectly. Wastes of space trying to make themselves feel important even though you’re just losers spewing absolute s**t about loser-machines. Which you for example don’t even own.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Lockstops:

            • It is a FACT that electricity losses are massive to the battery. You are a pathetic, despicable liar who leaves out that battery part in response and just blurts out absolute s**t about losses from power plant to distributing station.
            — That argument, is still false. The loss in the battery alone is less than 8%; at least in the Tesla, I can’t speak on other brands.

            • It is a FACT that BEVs are extremely wasteful when they need to be heated and cooled.
            — Depends on your definition of wasteful. Moreover, there are easy ways to counter that supposed “waste”, especially since even an ICEV needs to be plugged in during super-cold weather to keep the oil from stiffening up. It seems some people know how to get the best economy out of their cars than others, because you ALWAYS present the worst-case scenario as though it were normal when owners have already proven you wrong.

            • It is a FACT that BEVs are even at best merely a few percent less polluting than ICEs. On top of that the difference in pollution as a whole, including all our life activities is miniscule.
            — Again false, as the article I posted clearly proves. A BEV is 25% cleaner than a hybrid and a full 50% cleaner than a full ICEV in the WORST coal-fired power plant scenario–cradle to grave.

            • But it is a FACT that the cost of spending so much on BEVs is MASSIVE to our societies and economies. So as stated above barely any effect, but MASSIVE cost.
            — The cost you’re complaining about is the up-front cost of developing an all-new transportation paradigm. Even the ICEV went through that–100 years ago.

            • It is also a fact that heavy BEVs increase injuries and deaths very much. Lots of suffering, but you a-hole cultists don’t care.
            — Absolutely false and I challenge you to show me ANY verifiable documentation that supports that statement.

            • All in all it figures that loser d-heads would rant and rave moronically about such d**less s**t as electric cars. It all just fits in perfectly.
            — ummm…. Who’s the one doing all the ranting and raving? Certainly not me.

  • avatar
    conundrum

    Predictably stupid responses.

    Instead of letting private oil barons keep the profits of oil production as in the US, Norway kept its oil money and now has over a trillion bucks socked away in its sovereign fund. That’s $200,000 per capita.

    I guess saving money for the population from a resource owned by a country instead of giving it away to the alreasdy filthy rich is socialism – if you you think like a rabid right wing American.

    But why bother with facts when you can trumpet your envy by calling people names?

    • 0 avatar
      Ce he sin

      Ah, but Norway has high social mobility, low levels of poverty, a well developed social welfare system and a relatively low crime rate. Sounds like hell on earth for many posting here!

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff Waingrow

        I know all of this, but guess what: They don’t have AK-47s in every home. What the hell kind of country is that? Bunch of losers.

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          “I know all of this, but guess what: They don’t have AK-47s in every home. What the hell kind of country is that? Bunch of losers.”

          Cause that is relevant to EV ownership……

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          In the US, it’s AR-15s in every home, which is basically a semi-automatic M-16 variant. The AK-47 is a different kind of “modern sporting rifle”, which is also used by militaries and paramilitaries worldwide.

          And, yes, AR-15s are popular with people who perpetrate mass shootings. But it’s also popular with gun enthusiasts, most of whom don’t actually commit mass murder. It is what it is.

          Yeah, living in the US has forced me.to learn this stuff, even though I’m not naturally interested in it.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            Sadly the reason I had to learn this stuff was that a mass shooting ripped a hole through my community (Virginia Tech) a decade ago.

            I was at work on camous during the massacre. Fortunately not in Norris Hall, though I did work there sometimes — and took classes there as an undergrad.

            No AR-15s were used during the massacre at Virginia Tech. It was semi-automatic handguns, which are also exceedingly deadly in the wrong hands.

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        “Ah, but Norway has high social mobility, low levels of poverty, a well developed social welfare system and a relatively low crime rate. Sounds like hell on earth for many posting here!”

        Norway has 5 million people, we have 3-4 times as many illegals 99% from 3rd world sh**holes. Let’s ship ’em to Norway and see what that does for that stats……

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Not just 5 million people, but 5 million Norwegians. It is their culture that distinguishes them. That is why they can have generous social benefits. They have a very strong culturally-enforced work ethic and find sloth to be shameful. (They are waking up to the fact that many immigrants to their country do not necessarily feel the same way.)

          Norwegian immigrants to the US are also very successful and law-abiding. And yes, many of them, both here and there, have firearms. And yet, they are still peaceful and hard-working. It is all about culture, not control. Imagine that.

          • 0 avatar
            Carrera

            Bingo! Thelaine gets it. Although that kind of “hateful” rethoric can get you banned in a few years from most public platforms. No, no, no that’s hate speach.

    • 0 avatar
      doggydave

      I fully agree with you that Norway has their collective heads screwed on straight. I wish our population was similarly enlightened. It’s easy for our “populist” class to bitch about “socialism” and talk about how great it is in the US, where corporate forces and the wealthiest continue to amass more power and wealth, while everyone else gets poorer and sicker. Our Trump lovers will have a huge surprise when their god doesn’t show up to save them (or their progeny) from the environmental wreck we’re engineering. Or maybe they’ll just be happy to go to heaven and float on clouds all day and see their long-dead pets and kin. What’s not to like.

      • 0 avatar

        Norway as well as Japan are monoethnic societies and advanced ones at that. You cannot compare US with them. Compare it rather with countries like Russia and, well may be India, Brazil, Argentina?

        • 0 avatar
          deanst

          Norway tops the Economist’s list of the worlds most democratic countries…..U.S. is down around 21.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            “Norway tops the Economist’s list of the worlds most democratic countries…..U.S. is down around 21.”

            Could have something to do with the US being a Federal Republic and not a Democracy…..

      • 0 avatar
        Lockstops

        If socialism was really so great then socialists could convince people to voluntarily pay them for their ‘great services’ and they could compete with the free market players. But guess what? Socialists always have to force people to pay, they can never convince people to do it voluntarily. And their services can never compete with the free market.

        It’s also socialism that is the greatest asset of the ‘corporate forces’, and most of the ‘corporate forces’ are actually owned by the socialist leadership (at least in Europe). You can go to a Nordic country today where the massive new subway station complex with its shopping center, Burger King and Taco Bell plus huge housing projects for the newly arrived ‘refugees’ living and spending lavishly on welfare, are all owned by the leftists (through their foundations, tax-exempt companies, and through their hidden foreign holdings but mostly just out in the open).

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      Norway’s subsidies to ev owners are internal, not borrowed from other countries. This is a decision made by their democratic government. Any non-Norwegian bellyaching about it is just a crank.

      They choose to do this despite being in line to suffer only a tiny percentage of the overall damage that will result fron global warming.

      • 0 avatar
        thx_zetec

        I for one am not belly-aching about their policies, it is their country. Heck, their huge EV subsidies pay for many Tesla’s which are exported from US. If I were to belly-ache I’d say hey, subsidize import of some generous pickups too.

        The question posted in title is if this is (or should be?) future of US. As US citizen I can see this causing some indigestion for sure. 7 dollar gas and 30,000 per vehicle subsidies would be a tough sell.

    • 0 avatar
      R Henry

      Norway has ZERO immigration. Yes, a generous social safety net works in a small homogeneous nation, leveraging its petro wealth, and with no immigration.

      Indeed, what may have some success in tiny Norway he has no relationship to what could work in USA or other Western nations.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        @R Henry: “Norway has ZERO immigration.”

        R Henry is a perfect example of how some people, who seem to tend to hold far-right viewpoints, compulsively make false statements.

        From Wikipedia:

        “In 2017, Norway’s immigrant population consisted of 883,751 people, making up 16.8% of the country’s total population.[1] This includes both foreign-born and Norwegian-born with two foreign-born parents, and four foreign-born grandparents. In this population, 724,987 are foreign-born immigrants, while 158,764 are norwegian-born with foreign-born parents.[2] The ten most common countries of origin of immigrants residing in Norway are Poland (97,196), Lithuania (37,638), Sweden (36,315), Somalia (28,696), Germany (24,601), Iraq & Kurdistan region (22,493), Syria (20,823), Philippines (20,537), Iran & Kordestan province (21,364) Pakistan (19,973).[3] The immigration population comprises people from a total of 221 countries and autonomous regions.[4]

        Immigration to Norway has increased over the last decades, beginning in the early 1990s. In 1992, the immigrant population in Norway was 183,000 individuals, representing 4.3% of the total population, and the net migration consisted of 9,105 people. In 2012, net migration peaked, as 48,714 people came to the country. Starting in 2013, net migration has decreased. In 2016, net migration was 27,778. [5]

        Immigrants from specific countries are divided into several ethnic groups. For example, there are both Turks and Kurds from Turkey, Sinhalese and Tamils from Sri Lanka, Arabs and Berbers from Morocco, Jews and Palestinans from Israel, Macedonians and Albanians from Macedonia. Immigrants from Iran are divided into Persians, Azeris, Kurds and Lurs.[6]”

      • 0 avatar
        TS020

        That’s something a LOT of Norwegian sympathizers skip over; whilst Norway does accept some refugees I believe it’s something like only 3% are able to stay in the country after 2 years due to many of the refugees not meeting Norway’s standards (language level not high enough, haven’t pursued higher education or employment, etc). Imagine having to learn the language of the country you’re trying to immigrate to, what a concept.

    • 0 avatar
      Whatnext

      A trillion bucks you say? That’s enough to pay one year of the Orange Bloviator’s American deficits.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    Forget Norway, EV’s will be huge in China shortly bringing down costs & pushing the technology forward. As a second or third car an EV is pretty much a no brainer for a family with a home. Hardly a niche vehicle when that scenario numbers in the millions in the US alone. They are much nicer to drive than an ICE, have brakes that last indefinitely, have lower maintenance than an ICE & you don’t have to waste time stopping at a gas station to fuel them up. 3 years of ownership with my Volt has shown me that full on EV is the way to go next. I tow a lot so I’ll always have an ICE vehicle as a back-up

    • 0 avatar
      deanst

      I guess most people in North America don’t have a brain…..hence the cancellation of the Volt.

      As much as I’d like to buy an EV, they still don’t make economic sense in the absence of state subsidies – unless you’re willing to pay up for the privilege of saving the planet.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        Why shouldn’t you pay up to help save the planet? Or, should you benefit financially by damaging the planet?

        In reality, you could benefit both in quality of life and financially from a transition to clean energy.

        • 0 avatar
          scott25

          Buying an EV and transitioning to clean energy are vastly different things, especially over here

          • 0 avatar
            Lockstops

            Yeah, using (not clean) energy to heat up my EV’s battery just so that it could start charging (and still charged at a poor rate), then heat up the car on electricity, then keep the car warm on electricity, then use electricity to cool the battery while driving so it doesn’t overheat, all the while having a pretty significant amount of energy lost on the way from the power station to the battery… Not saving the planet.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @deanst: The Volt was an over-engineered piece of hybrid junk; THAT’s why it was dropped. The Bolt is still in existence and not so ridiculously over-engineered. The Bolt is the BEV.

    • 0 avatar
      Lockstops

      I had an EV. How is it ‘much nicer to drive than an ICE’?? What do you mean I didn’t have to waste time stopping to fuel it up??

      Sounds like the opposite of reality to me.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @Lockstops: You don’t give nearly enough information to make that argument believeable. What EV did you have, for how long, and how did you charge it? You might also tell us about your living arrangements: do you live in a single family home? With or without driveway? Garage?

        Please. Make us believe you had these troubles.

        • 0 avatar
          Lockstops

          i3, half a year.

          No matter how you charge it, it’s a pain in the butt. Especially if not only charging from an (expensive) home quick-charger just about every time.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            “No matter how you charge it, it’s a pain in the butt. Especially if not only charging from an (expensive) home quick-charger just about every time.”

            I’ve been charging my Volt with nothing more than the 115 outlet in my garage, piece of cake – not sure what your problem is . You are correct that cold weather has a huge effect on the efficiency of an EV. Electric heat is very ineffcient where with an ICE you use what is normally wasted heat energy to keep the cabin warm . But during the summer the energy to cool the battery & cabin when driving is so minor it’s not worth mentioning. Running the AC in my little Chevy has barely any effect on the range. I consistently get 43-47 miles out of every charge during hot summer days running the AC. Even in ECO mode the car is totally comfortable as the HVAC system doesn’t have to counter all that heat being produced by an ICE under the hood.

    • 0 avatar
      R Henry

      Your understand may shift a bit when you realize that Chinese don’t necessarily have their own home in the ‘burbs. As here, apartment dwellers who rely on using street parking, or non-dedicated garage parking are stuck up excrement-creek.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        “Your understand may shift a bit when you realize that Chinese don’t necessarily have their own home in the ‘burbs.’

        Regardless of whether or not Chinese have homes in the burbs EV’s will rule in China shortly. That will push push the costs down of an EV worldwide. EV’s will never replace ICE vehicles in the US in my lifetime but I believe they will replace a lot of ICE’s used as second & third vehicles in the millions upon millions of homes in the US. If you’re an apartment dweller guess you’re out of luck, but then you probably only own 1 car(because you have no place to park a 2nd one)so an EV isn’t the right vehicle for you anyways.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          @carlson: No need to charge at home. Just charge at a quick charger. The Chinese have the new G/BT standard in the works that supports 1500v 600kW. Battery cells twice the density of the current cells in most EVs are in early production (but really expensive) now so 500 to 600-mile range EVs are only a few years away. The problems with EVs are being solved.

          https://insideevs.com/china-new-gb-t-fast-charging-standard-900-kw/

          Even with a current 300-mile range and charging technology, you could quick charge every 4 or 5 days if you wanted.

  • avatar
    markf

    Folks always like to forget the monoethic (83.2 Norwegian) culture when comparing places like Norway to the USA, or the fact that at 5.2 million people its less than 2% of the US population. Hell, their total population is 1/3 of our illegal population. Plus, they don’t have a wide open boarder and an ongoing invasion of 3rd world peasants. But hey, everything else is the same, amiright?

    Teslas for all!

    • 0 avatar
      deanst

      Not sure what absolute size has to do with it – should we assume the u.s. will be worse on everything due to its size? – but despite a small immigrant population, over half of low income families in Norway are immigrants, and the unemployment rate is about 3 x higher for immigrants.

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        “Not sure what absolute size has to do with it – should we assume the u.s. will be worse on everything due to its size? – but despite a small immigrant population, over half of low income families in Norway are immigrants, and the unemployment rate is about 3 x higher for immigrants.”

        You can’t understand how an ethnically homogeneous population of 5 million with a “small immigrant population” would be easier to manage than a 330 million ethnically diverse population including 12-15 million illegal aliens from poor, 3rd world countries?

        Someone needs to explain that to you?

    • 0 avatar
      scott25

      In case you haven’t heard, an ongoing invasion of 3rd world peasants has been a slight issue across the European continent over the last few years…

  • avatar
    nels0300

    Yeah, like others have pointed out, 6 people and a few dogs live in Norway. And they produce ~1.6M barrels of oil a day. And they don’t let anyone in.

    So yeah, it’s totally comparable to the US. Lol.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      In 2017, 17% of the Norwegian population were immigrants. How does that square with “not letting anyone in”?

      A bit of research before posting can hide display of stupidity and declaration of far-right obedience.

      • 0 avatar
        nels0300

        Ha, I’m not a right winger. I don’t have anything against EVs.

        So Norway has 2 immigrants, so what. It’s not easy to immigrate to Norway. They don’t let just anyone in. You want to live there permanently? Better have a job and you better speak Norwegian.

        It’s not the same at all as the US and isn’t comparable. What works in Norway won’t necessarily work in the US.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          @nels0300

          883,751 is a larger number than 2. Why are you so determined to look dumb?

          From Wikipedia:

          “In 2017, Norway’s immigrant population consisted of 883,751 people, making up 16.8% of the country’s total population.[1] This includes both foreign-born and Norwegian-born with two foreign-born parents, and four foreign-born grandparents. In this population, 724,987 are foreign-born immigrants, while 158,764 are norwegian-born with foreign-born parents.[2] The ten most common countries of origin of immigrants residing in Norway are Poland (97,196), Lithuania (37,638), Sweden (36,315), Somalia (28,696), Germany (24,601), Iraq & Kurdistan region (22,493), Syria (20,823), Philippines (20,537), Iran & Kordestan province (21,364) Pakistan (19,973).[3] The immigration population comprises people from a total of 221 countries and autonomous regions.[4]

          Immigration to Norway has increased over the last decades, beginning in the early 1990s. In 1992, the immigrant population in Norway was 183,000 individuals, representing 4.3% of the total population, and the net migration consisted of 9,105 people. In 2012, net migration peaked, as 48,714 people came to the country. Starting in 2013, net migration has decreased. In 2016, net migration was 27,778. [5]

          Immigrants from specific countries are divided into several ethnic groups. For example, there are both Turks and Kurds from Turkey, Sinhalese and Tamils from Sri Lanka, Arabs and Berbers from Morocco, Jews and Palestinans from Israel, Macedonians and Albanians from Macedonia. Immigrants from Iran are divided into Persians, Azeris, Kurds and Lurs.[6]”

          • 0 avatar
            Lockstops

            …the effects of which are not yet to be seen. The migration, mostly this side of the new century, has not affected Norway’s economic strategies of the 70’s and 80’s and does not yet affect the foundations of their economy. That’ll hit a bit later in its full effect.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Lockstops:

            Well, hello, Captain Obvious. Considering that BEVs have not been on the open market UNTIL after the new century, outside of the ones sold around this same period in the old century, stating the, “migration (is) mostly this side of the new century…)

            However, maybe you were unaware of the General Motors EV-1 experiment, where several hundred BEVs were built and leased to consumers. Maybe you were unaware of how popular they became. Maybe you were unaware of how GM canceled the program early. Maybe you were unaware of how the lessees fought to keep those cars to the end of the contracted least period (and beyond.) Maybe you were unaware that all but three of those BEVs were destroyed, seemingly for no reason. Maybe you were unaware that of those three, ONE is still in private hands, while a second is in the Smithsonian Museum and the other in a GM museum.

            Availability is important for any kind of migration and availability is growing, from nearly every automotive OEM on the market.

          • 0 avatar
            Lockstops

            Vulpine: you’re simply too stupid to even understand what others write. You are intellectually unable to function in a conversation. You have no idea what I just wrote and responded with unintelligible drivel that in no way addresses anything I pointed out.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Lockstops: Keep believing that. I’ve already proven you wrong so many times you can’t even counter them.

  • avatar
    nels0300

    But hey, good for Norway.

    They didn’t squander their natural resource windfall. They took that wealth and put it to work. They’re smart, smart, smart.

    Venezuela and Saudi Arabia should just give up and let Norway manage their countries.

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    A favored myth repeated by far-right ev haters and global warming deniers is that electrical generation and grids are not prepared for large-scale ev adoption.

    We hear of no such problem in Norway, where surely there are enough ev’s to create a problem at their current market penetration.

    Just something the article failed to mention.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Data is needed to make an argument in either direction.

    • 0 avatar
      markf

      “A favored myth repeated by far-right ev haters and global warming deniers is that electrical generation and grids are not prepared for large-scale ev adoption.”

      Would that the “myth” no one actually mentioned but you?

      You need a new religion as each year the earth cools proving the :deniers”correct…..

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        @markf: ““A favored myth repeated by far-right ev haters and global warming deniers is that electrical generation and grids are not prepared for large-scale ev adoption.”

        Would that the “myth” no one actually mentioned but you?

        You need a new religion as each year the earth cools proving the :deniers”correct…..”

        No, I don’t make up lies. That is the province of people such as yourself who are happy to contribute another: that the earth is cooling. News flash: the earth isn’t flat either.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          The ability for the grid to charge a near all-electric fleet depends a lot on what the state of your electrical infrastructure is and how you manage it. If all the cars in NYC had to charge during the day – a hot summer’s day – the grid would not be up to the task. That is why we get paid to reduce peak load during those heat waves. The beancounters have decided that this is cheaper than infrastructure upgrades. It works for now but one can’t help but wonder with thousands of new residential units hitting the market each year if their luck will run out sooner than later. Other utilities have chosen to upgrade the distribution system and to look at alternatives such as distributed generation. So the answer is not at all uniform.

          As for the climate, the last year that the globe experienced temperatures that were colder than the average was 1976. Even Sean Hannity or Senator Inhofe can’t change that fact. And please remember – weather and climate while related, are not remotely the same thing.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “As for the climate, the last year that the globe experienced temperatures that were colder than the average was 1976.”
            — Where did you find that datum? Because from what I read from NASA, 2018 was the second hottest year on record, globally speaking.

    • 0 avatar
      IBx1

      Norway is the size of Germany with 75 million fewer people to service and the country is shaped as a single long corridor with a southern hub; maintaining and continuously modernizing the electrical infrastructure for them would be ridiculously easy.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        “Norway is the size of Germany with 75 million fewer people to service and the country is shaped as a single long corridor with a southern hub; maintaining and continuously modernizing the electrical infrastructure for them would be ridiculously easy.”

        Maintaining electrical systems is proportional to population. No country grossely overbuilds it.

        How does a spread-out population make doing this easier?

        My point stands.

        • 0 avatar
          IBx1

          Do yourself a favor and look at a map of Norway. It’s linear in shape instead of a big blotch of land; you can run a limited amount of high tension lines along the spine of the country and imitate nature like the veins of a leaf. It’s far easier than trying to build a spiderweb of main electrical transmission points. Easy to plan, easy to implement, and 5 million people don’t use much electricity anyway.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @IBx1: Maybe you should look at that map again. I will tell you now that there are MANY Norwegian towns that lie along the coast and the only means of transportation between many of these towns is by water, not road. Sure, people in these towns won’t have cars at home but they may have a car in a parking garage in one of the larger towns nearby. Or have you forgotten how steep those fjord cliffs are? Supplying electricity to these towns is not as easy as you think.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “Could Norway’s EV Adoption Signal Our Own Electric Future?”

    No.

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    Wait. So give people a bunch of free stuff and they willingly take it? NO WAY.

    If they give every citizen a free electric car they would have 100% share right now! Come on Norway, try harder!

  • avatar
    JoDa

    All governments will put guns to everyones head – so it’s Electric Future, or die. Very soon now, the greatest crime on Earth will not be murder/theft/rape, it will be “Climate Change Denial”.

  • avatar
    stuki

    There’s no meaningful “future” in doing things inefficiently. At least not on a large scale. Lottery winners, and Fed Welfare Queens, can commute by helicopter. Those with a few $million worth of oil per capita, can burn gold, or other similarly costly rare earths, on their commute. Or, they can have and raise kids until denominator growth render them less flush, like the Saudis.

    But for the rest, BEVs don’t make sense in scenarios where they’re not the most efficient way of accomplishing what they are tasked with. And for a whole lot of use cases, they are not even remotely close. And, in their current incarnation or anything like it, won’t be.

    In most of the world, there’s still room for growth, as BEVs are the bee’s knees for short hop city driving, ASSUMING very easy access to a less limiting car as well. BEVs are still newish, so there’s still lots of untapped potential out there. But for every BEV sold, that untapped market gets smaller. And the potential market size, will only increase if BEVs continue to improve in efficiency more than ICEs. Something cell phone batteries (the gold standard for battery “efficiency”) have stopped doing over the past few years.

    Gas cars have been clean since the 90s. Or, at least they were clean, until sodabubblephobia drove makers to dieselify them with direct injection tech. Perhaps they still are, despite their makers now being more focused on nonsense than real world issues. Diesel is more problematic in engines smaller and less narrowly focused than long haul trucks. But as generator fuel for BEV charging grids, diesel is now clean as well. Urban air quality problems in Europe and Japan, and also America, is increasingly originating not from tailpipes, but rather from the road/tire interface. Heavy, battery cars with infinite horsepower and torque don’t help at all, with that issue. Cheap, lightweight cars, powered by whatever, do. Cram Japan’s population into Norway, and they’d see the benefit of Kei cars over 5000lb Tesla X’ as well, in an Oslo the size of Tokyo.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @Stuki: “But for the rest, BEVs don’t make sense in scenarios where they’re not the most efficient way of accomplishing what they are tasked with.”
      — Exactly what scenario is it where BEVs, “are not the most efficient way”? They literally use no gasoline. The price of electricity even in Europe is roughly half that per mile driven as gasoline (diesel is actually cheaper than gasoline there, before taxes) and you simply don’t need to stand out in the weather to refuel/charge your car–usually because it’s in your driveway or garage and you’re enjoying your favorite TV show or other entertainment. Total TCO should come out equal to OR LOWER than a similar class of ICE vehicle.

      Gas cars are not clean. I will grant that they’re much cleaner than they used to be but they’re still emitting toxins into the air as well as other pollutants. Even the cleanest car can still kill its occupant in a closed garage with the engine running. A BEV will not do that. Ignore that “soapbubblephobia” thing; CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is just one of many pollutants emitted and is the one used by “tree huggers” to argue Global Warming. Now, I don’t care if you believe in Global Warming or not because that’s not the only thing ICEVs can cause. All you have to do is look at China’s heavily-polluted cities and the fact that so many have to wear particulate masks just to be able to breathe to know that CO2 is not the only or the biggest issue with burning fuel.

      As for, “cheap, lightweight cars” in the US, those are virtually impossible now. There are so many standards on them that even if they were pedal powered they’d be so heavy you wouldn’t be able to climb a 1% grade at any speed, much less a 660cc engine. No, they wouldn’t see the benefit of Kei cars–those tiny engines pollute more because they have to work so hard and don’t get the care that the bigger engines do.
      • Japan’s Kei-Cars Are Actually Horrible To Drive https://jalopnik.com/japans-kei-cars-are-actually-horrible-to-drive-1786250335
      • 10 Kei Cars That Prove Japan Does Small Vehicles Better Than Anyone Else https://www.carthrottle.com/post/10-kei-cars-that-prove-japan-does-small-vehicles-better-than-anyone-else/
      — Note here that some are including electric drives now. Note also that few, VERY FEW Americans would be caught dead driving them.
      • Japan’s Tiny ‘Kei’ Cars Set For Increasing Electrification https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081370_japans-tiny-kei-cars-set-for-increasing-electrification
      — And yes, that electrification is expanding.
      So what was that about Norway and Kei cars?

      No. I think the problem is that you don’t understand the BEV anywhere nearly as much as you think you do. You repeat the same arguments other naysayers use without even trying to get to the truth. Yes, BEVs can help the environment but that is not their whole purpose. They’re fun; they’re quiet; they’re quick and they’re economical to operate. And keep in mind that while the price of Regular gasoline is “reasonable” at $2.00± a few ¢, 89 Octane is running in the $2.60 -$2.70 range and 91 Octane is running in the $2.80+ range. These newer, smaller, turbocharged engines almost demand 89 or higher for everyday driving and even the newer trucks are requiring 91 for towing. That means here in the States a BEV costs almost 75% less to recharge for the same range covered.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      You are dead on, Stuki.

    • 0 avatar
      Lockstops

      “BEVs are the bee’s knees for short hop city driving”

      Are they though? If temperatures are low you first need to heat up the battery, then start the lossy charging process, then the battery loses power every hour. Then you need to heat the cabin with electricity, then as you drive you have to cool the battery and use lots of electricity to continue heating the cabin. Then after that short hop you let the car cool again. Only to have to start the heating process again for charging and passenger comfort of the next trip…

  • avatar
    Carrera

    This was tried in Danemmark a few years back. Sales of plug in Leaf and Tesla exploded. But the other thing that happened, a big influx of people from religion of peace countries occured at the same time. Now the country’s coffers were emptying quick. ICE vehicles were taxed to hell in DK. Not much money coming in with the new electrics. After about 2 years, the policy changed back. Electric car sales became negligible..again.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @Carrera: Aside from your spelling errors, do you have any proof of this at all? Any?

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      Part of what happened in Denmark is that people bought lots of ev’s in anticipation of the incentives going away. Then after the incentives ended they held off hoping the incentives would be restored. Unfortunately this irregularity is not being helpful.

      Currently there are indications Denmark will soon restore lower ev incentives plus move on getting rid of diesels.

      https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/01/denmark-rethinks-ev-incentives-after-market-collapses/

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    The big issue in the US will eventually be registration fees based on user mileage, based first on an accepted average if the user has never previously registered a car in that state. Federal taxes will be based on the state data.

    Alternatively, fee-based chargers will include a Federal (and maybe state) fee based on a fixed figure added to the per-kWh charged–though that would get unbalanced if larger vehicles manage usage rates similar to smaller vehicles. Since that’s unlikely, it would probably be more fair to all as the weight differences would tend to get automatically calculated in, much as liquid-fuel taxes do today.

  • avatar
    thx_zetec

    Will the US go this way? If we in US want this we would try it. We just need 7 dollar per gallon gas taxes and 30,000 subsidy per car. Good luck with campaigning on the former, good luck paying for the latter.

    Norway is.a wealthy country with large oil reserves. Ironically selling their oil gives them money to subsidize non-oil transportation. Isn’t this a like an abolitionist earning money by selling slaves.

    Milton Friedman had a funny story about Norway. he visited there and a Norwegian told him “we don’t have many poor people here in Norway”. Milton Friedman, referring to economic success of Norwegians in US said “we don’t have many poor Norwegians in the US either”

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @thx_zetec: Some in the US are already trying it, to the tune of some 200,000 in one brand alone, not counting the tens of thousands of Chevys, who knows how many Nissans and other brands. A lot of people in the US do want it and are being held back more on lack of availability than price, though price is a factor for many. The problem is, those many don’t seem to understand that a BEV can save them money, despite their higher up-front price.

      • 0 avatar
        thx_zetec

        Vulpine

        We’ll see. I don’t claim to know the preferences of 300,000,000 Americans. That is the point in a way – not my ignorance but that technology and markets have a certain kind of unpredictability. The IC engine won’t last forever – but may last decades more may be replaced by something besides BEV’s.

        You say 200,000 tried one brand, true enough. But they did so with large subsidies. Not just state, federal tax incentives but also “compliance credits”. Car companies not selling EV’s have to buy credits from companies that do.

        You say “those don’t seem to understand that BEV can see them money” implying that we just have to educate. But as mentioned above, when Denmark cut subsidies sales fell, and this was with gas prices much higher than US. See “Denmark Rethinks EV Incentives After Market Collapses”, this appears in a normally pro-EV site. So subsidies are needed not just to get initial sales, but are required to support . . .those Danes are slow learners maybe?

        Tesla sells not because they are cheaper, but because of cool-factor and great acceleration (I’ve driven a Tesla S, amazing). Musk is both a braggart-idiot and genius, and the latter shows in Tesla; don’t sell a mass-market penalty box, but a car with some amazing acceleration etc. My point is that I don’t see cost as major driver for Tesla purchase; this is not necessarily a bad thing, as US market success is usually not cheapest cars.

        My last car I paid 12k total and drove for 17 years. I have 2 car family and my commute is 5 miles, I am good candidate for EV but I won’t pay 45k for one. One thing to remember about subsidies (tax cuts, hidden “compliance credits:, and no gas tax) is that they don’t matter much when a few per cent but EV’s. If a majority adopt then cost can’t be shouldered by IC population.

        When EV’s are

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @Zetec: Believe it or not, I won’t argue what you just said. You’re quite right that people will do what they want to do when it comes to EVs. However, one thing we are seeing is that as their prices come down more in line with similar ICE cars, the EVs sell at similar rates to their ICE equivalents from any other single brand. The Tesla Model 3 is already showing this when compared to BMW 3-series, Mercedes C and a few others. The Models S and X are selling in similar numbers to BMW 7 and Mercedes S because they are similarly priced, even if not identically so. Moreover, most owners of the Tesla cars in particular are claiming money saved in normal operation, even if they do complain about unexpected repairs like body work or major breakdown. These costs will decline as Tesla manages to build more service centers and manufacture enough spare parts to inventory common parts and ship them in a more timely manner.

          But the story isn’t only about Tesla; we’re going to find nearly identical issues with any brand’s BEVs for the next few years. Only as production increases will spare parts become more available. These costs will have some willing to adopt EVs choose to wait until these issues are resolved.

          Again, for some the issue is education; far too many argue the same talking points as others to the extent that it’s clear they’re relying on what others say rather than doing their own research. A simple calculation of fuel prices vs electric prices shows no less than a 50% savings based on mileage alone and an even greater savings when vehicles of equivalent performance are compared. If an average car spends $960/year using regular gas and a high-performance car spends $1200 using mid-grade gas, while the BEV only spends $400-$450 for electricity to travel the same distance, the difference in up-front price is typically paid for in just a few years. The more miles you drive, the sooner that difference is paid off. Add to this the costs of scheduled maintenance for anything engine related and yes, even brakes, and the difference in up front cost becomes a long-term TCO less than the ICEV. At worst, when taking taxes and registration into account, the TCO will be almost the same between the two types of vehicle.

          And yes, even your own last paragraph shows that you need to study both sides of the argument better. Clearly you bought used which changes the numbers but used BEVs are already available for far less than the $45K you mention. They’re not Teslas, mind you, but considering your commute, it seems a Leaf could be in your future if you were willing to try–or wait a couple years and go for a used Chevy Bolt.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Friedman nailed it. A brilliant and wonderful man.

  • avatar
    Ce he sin

    It’s amusing to read the comments of those who take an article about EVs in Norway as an excuse to dig out their misconceptions and prejudices about a country which I’d guess many would have difficulty placing on a map.
    So we learn that:
    Norway has no immigrants
    Nobody lives in Norway
    Norway is over run with Muslim hordes hell-bent on destruction
    Norway is a socialist dystopia where the inhabitants are brain washed into submission by a government which owns everything and controls every aspect of their lives
    Norway is mono ethnic and this makes it easy to persuade people that incentives for buying EVs are a good idea
    Housing is little better than improvised
    People live like the rural poor

    You couldn’t make it up!

    Actually, you could…..

  • avatar
    spookiness

    And the answer to the original headline is, “no.” Norway is fortunate to have vast hydroelectric resources, to the tune of 98‰ of electricity production. So it makes sense for them to utilize a vast bottomless resource domestically, and sell petrol which travels better and commands a better price. The US has a different resource portfolio, geographic and geopolitical context, political and regulatory regime, and other factors, so no the US’s EV adoption will probably not trend like Norway’s for a multitude of reasons. Meanwhile it’s been a hoot observing all the triggered responses regarding the evils of socialism and brown people, and to learn there is nothing to be learned about such a puny little inbred pissant country.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    1) There is a ‘right wing’ reason for reducing/eliminating ICE vehicles. The funding for Islamic terrorism. Primarily derived from petroleum money/funds. Eliminate their source of funding (petroleum) and they become impotent.
    2) If as posted 17% of the Norwegian population consists of immigrants than that is a far larger percentage than in the USA.
    3) Norwegian ‘cultural norms’ are indeed different than those in the current USA due primarily to the propagation of ‘alt-right’ myths such as ‘trickle down’ economics and ‘rugged individualism’ and the Heller decision. Pre-1960 US cultural norms (at least outside of the Confederate states) were closely in line with those of Norwegians, possibly due to their religious similarities. Southern, Confederate, pseudo Baptist theory has now become the dominant religious thought driving ‘Caucasian’ America.
    4) Climate change (forget the ‘global warming’ derision) is proven empirically by scientific research. Just like evolution. It seems that those who are most virulently opposed to the science of ‘climate change’ are also those most credulous regarding evolution.
    5) Electric motors are superior to ICE. In almost every factor that matters. ICE originally won because petroleum based fuel was plentiful, inexpensive and easy to distribute. Pure electric, I believe is a stop-gap, non-starter for many uses. However ICE is losing and will eventually be replaced by better technology. Just as steam engines were replaced, after being dominant for a century.

  • avatar
    Roader

    Norway, like the rest of the Norden, is white. Really, really white. Over 90% white. The US, in comparison, is close to 60% non-hispanic white. Norway’s racial demographics are similar to Vermont’s or New Hampshire’s. Easy to get along, easy to agree to share stuff, when everyone looks, talks, and pretty much thinks exactly the same. Much more difficult to do in the racially and ethnically diverse United States.

    Freidman’s quote:

    A Scandinavian economist once said to Milton Friedman, ‘In Scandinavia, we have no poverty’. Milton Friedman replied, ‘That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either’.

  • avatar
    jatz

    What has TTAC learned over this past weekend?

    MOAR EV NEWS ABOUT PINK PANTS COUNTRIES!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • FormerFF: “Neither of the two were willing to move on price” I’ve bought a couple of used cars in...
  • WildcatMatt: I saw one of these yesterday and thought it looks quite like a 3/5 scale Chrysler Pacifica (the old one,...
  • Secret Hi5: Base SE trim Konas are available on rental lots. I drove one about 200 miles last month. Can’t...
  • ToolGuy: Unless someone has been carefully and systematically painting on a salt solution in little circular patterns...
  • Art Vandelay: also like 25 percent of the EV fee is for charging infrastructure which also is funded via, you guessed...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States