Norway reportedly agrees on banning new sales of gas-powered cars by 2025
electrek.co
electrek.co
1) Yeah, they are a small resource rich country, not practical for the rest of us.
America, Canada, UK, Saudi Arabia and Australia were resource rich and still are ( America is the largest producer of oil ) and had the opportunity to do what Norway did but chose not to do it.
UK had a huge surplus from north sea oil during the 1990s which is allowed private companies to profit off. Same with America, Australia and Canada.
It is really remarkable how Norway was able to and still is able to think so far ahead then the rest of us.
Regarding the power, the majority of the plants are owned by Statkraft, a 100% government owned company and is most definitely not privatized.
Flytoget runs well because even though it is owned by the government, they have had a very hands off approach and let them operate without interference. The same can be said of Statoil, the only reason it has done so well is that the government has been mostly hands off. My father was in the top management before retirement and has been very clear on this. Whenever the government tried to interfere it just made problems.
In essence, as a fellow Norwegian i disagree with you on these subjects (and some of what you write is simply not true).
More seriously, to finance populistic reforms to increase the power of their own party.
The Wikipedia article is fairly complete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlanda_Express
Also how do different parts of the US have different needs?
Ideological diversity can be measured by simply conducting public opinion polls on a range of public policy issues (social, economic, foreign, domestic, etc etc). This is a pretty well established science. Add in the distribution of said opinions -- a lot of different opinions in about the same mix everywhere is much different from large concentrated enclaves in different geographic regions (ie the Big Sort[1]).
As for different needs, before we even get into ideology simple geography dictates a lot already. California has a lot of forest fires, Louisiana and Texas have a lot of floods, New England has a lot of snow.
Then you get into urban vs. rural -- America has some of the most vast expanses of rural land and many of the world's biggest cities. Urban areas have very different needs from rural ones.
THEN you get into the differing needs of the peoples themselves which is affected by a million different variables. Education levels. Income levels. Health. Languages spoken in different regions. Populations with many recent immigrants have differing legal and social needs from populations of ninth generation native-born citizens. And on and on and on.
You seem to be implying that the US is the only place with diversity and that that somehow is an excuse for the US not having social security measures common in other countries.
Also what is the range of opinions in the US and how does it compare with the range of opinions in Norway?
> THEN you get into the differing needs of the peoples themselves which is affected by a million different variables. Education levels. Income levels. Health. Languages spoken in different regions. Populations with many recent immigrants have differing legal and social needs from populations of ninth generation native-born citizens. And on and on and on.
But are these requirements really that fundamentally different?
100% nope. Where did you get that? I'm in favor of social safety nets. This entire thread is about how easy it is to enact things like "No petrol based cars by 2025".
That's easy to do when you've got 4 million people spread over a small amount of space who come from similar backgrounds. That's harder to do with 300 million people spread over a large amount of space who come from different backgrounds. A small club is much easier to manage than a large club, I don't see what's so hard to comprehend about this.
> But are these requirements really that fundamentally different?
Yes... insofar as you get groups of people who stop thinking that it's their responsibility to cover the costs of the other group. Should people in North Dakota pay for national flood insurance of people who live in southern flood prone regions, even though it's basically guaranteed to flood there eventually? Should people in New Hampshire pay to replace homes lost in california forest fires even though it's basically guaranteed to burn in certain places? What you think is "right" on this issue doesn't matter. What matters is that people in those regions have differing opinions on the matter, and it is objectively harder to get them all to agree than a small country where people tend to have the same problems concentrated in a small place they all share.
Throw in the really controversial stuff like social issues, and the left and the right constantly trying to push their vision of it on the whole country at once, and you can see why maintaining a continent sized empire is more logistically challenging that keeping a small country together.
The average income in San Francisco, which has very good rapid transit solutions is $83k. The average income in Lancaster, Ca (a city at the edge of the Mojave) has an average household income of $51k. Busses are its rapid transit du jour. People need cars there, cheap cars, and they drive far each day.
Alabama, Kentucky, New Mexico, could the cities therein afford an electric car?
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&es... Ethnic groups. Norwegian 94.4% (includes Sami, about 60,000), other European 3.6%, other 2% (2007 estimate)
Of whom 80% belong to one religious denomination
Religions. Church of Norway (Evangelical Lutheran - official) 82.1%, other Christian 3.9%, Muslim 2.3%, Roman Catholic 1.8%, other 2.4%, unspecified 7.5% (2011 est.)
Not even a mix of 'white people', not even Baptists and Methodists, just Norwegian Lutherans.
And for a while those states were subject to ongoing raids from the federal government. The Obama administration has held off, but the legal framework that justifies said raids is very much in place. If opinions blow back the other way they could resume any time.
When you're not sovereign, then your sovereign can tell you what you can and can't do. If you're mostly on their side, it's not a problem, but there's no guarantee it will stay that way forever.
Say a conservative supreme court comes to power and says, "Yeah, pot is totally banned and states can't opt out of it." End of discussion.
Governments are very careful to set royalty rates appropriately. Extraction companies compare total costs, so countries with low labour and shipping costs can have higher royalties than countries with high costs. [3] I've seen a report out of New Zealand showing just how mercenary this is, comparing the cost-to-market from several countries complete with royalty rate comparisons.
The difference is in what the countries do with the royalties. For example, Alberta does have a sovereign wealth fund, but it also doesn't collect sales tax. Saudi Arabia has a huge sovereign fund - just not quite as big as Norway's. Saudi Arabia also has no personal income taxes.
Norway's genius is in sending the royalties through the fund, and then only allowing them to spend at most 4% of the total [1] - the estimated average annual return.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...
[2] https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2015/06...
[3] http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/the-cost-to-produce...
99% of the electricity in Norway comes from hydro power plants, it's a huge exporter of gas and oil and it's rich.
That makes it easier to make such a progressive decision but congrats for setting the first deadline.
Just be aware that the US imports 40% of it's Oil from Canada if it stops doing so it will have a major impact on Canada's economy which is a thing no one wants especially considering the current issues with the Canadian economy. However it if wanted too it could stop importing oil all together today since it has more than enough local production, it would however increase the cost of gas and other petroproducts in the US since the US often imports considerably cheaper oil from OPEC and Canada while exporting fairly expensive US crude.
There are more exports of finished products than there are imports, but that's not really the same thing... refinery capacity is much more a function of money than oil production.
(as an additional point: 40% of the total US oil consumption is a lot more oil than Canada produces each day! - I expect 40% of the total imports are from Canada.)
I think banning any technology is a bad idea. Imho, the problem with climate change is not the burning of oil or carbon, but the emissions from doing it.
I live next to a busy road and I frequently have to sweep noxious dust off my balcony. Not to mention that the sky at sunset is not naturally orange, but is tinted by the haze.
We banned CFCs because they were removing the UV filter from our atmosphere, so there is precedent, and decades later nobody misses them.
While this would ban current fuel burning technology, it might allow for someone to come up with a car engine or coal turbine that doesn't release anything.
Economically viable is another question, but there's some possibility that this may be the case.
But outside of the biggest cities public transport only runs during office hours. End result is that owning and using a car i vital to continued survival.
So expect this to turn petrol cars into something of a Giffen good, if not an outright Veblen good.
And even on that island with only ferry connection and 600 residents there is an hourly bus going the whole day to the local mainland town.
How far into the woods do you live? ;)
Its like a drug dealer that doesn't do his own drugs. You're still part of the problem. Out of sight out of mind.
The effect is that the Tesla model S cost roughly the same as a BMW 5-series, or Mercedes E-class.
Non-zero-emission cars aren't exactly financially beneficial already. However, long-term they would want to tax ZE cars as well (at least the standard 25% VAT), so hence the fossil cars will need to become even more expensive.
I really enjoyed the program, not least because I was pleasantly surprised to see something non-USA-produced in which USA was not idiotically militaristic. If Norwegians can imagine it, perhaps we can too...
Norway boldly goes zero-emission and turns off the fossil fuel tap.
The European Union essentially hires Russia to swoop in and invade in response to turn the tap back on. When the shocked Norwegian prime minister demands to talk to the person in charge, the EU chief's head pops up and scolds them saying they had this coming. Norwegian pm demands to talk to a european head of state.... and SWEDEN pops up. SWEDEN!
Seriously, I love this show, but the American equivalent would be if France and China teamed up as an evil strikeforce to invade America because they were printing too many Bibles or something.
EDIT: also if norway turned off the tap, isn't that GOOD for Russian gas exports & thus controlling europe? But exciting fiction nonetheless :P
I'd love to watch that one, haha!
Although I have to say, being scandinavian (馃嚫馃嚜) as well, the show had me thinking better about the life in Ukraine 2014, Iraq 2003 or Afghanistan 2001. Let's all refuse violence, and end war.
And to get back on topic, it definitely brought to my mind the idea how one country may quickly become isolated, because of puristic choices driven for a better life for the whole of the humanity. That by itself would keep me watching it.
And thanks for mentioning it!
Overnight charging systems are for homeowners. Even with a (high end, optimistic) public charge station time of 30 minutes, if there are just 4 people ahead of you in line, that's 2.5 hours out of your day.
Yes self driving may fix this eventually, but what if we are not there by 2025?
More meta: our inability to see solutions to minor roadblocks never mean something won't happen. It's similarly amazing to me how so many commenters here don't think insurance for self-driving cars is solvable in the US - while they're already being tested in several other countries.
Perhaps most importantly, since Scandinavia is at 60deg north, we use engine heaters in winter. That means that a lot of parking spaces, such as those outside multi-tenant buildings have a charger post with at least 230V/10A (because at -25C if you don't plug in at night you aren't going to get to work tomorrow).
So "plugging in your car" is something we have done for a long time, even with gasoline cars, and even if you don't live in a detached house.
Still interested in how we are going to make the electrical infrastructure buildout happen in the US. Commercial parking facility owners will respond to market incentives, sure, but I'm not sure that city governments and entrenched landlords will.
It will take a long time to replicate the network of petrol stations that covers basically all US roads. Also, modern EV cars are still an order of magnitude slower to recharge than gasoline cars are to refill. It's not as easy to increase your range in an EV as it is to carry some extra petrol if you're on a long trip into the brush.
Fortunately, I don't see this even being seriously proposed in the US until long after these problems are solved.
Every home is a slow charger. Tesla has Superchargers covering most of the first world.
> Also, modern EV cars are still an order of magnitude slower to recharge than gasoline cars are to refill.
Vehicles sit idle ~95% of the time. Average US round trip commute is ~45 miles/day. Plenty of charge time.
> Fortunately, I don't see this even being seriously proposed in the US until long after these problems are solved.
Tesla is making an announcement about their autonomous vehicle program near the end of the year.
Change is going to happen slowly, and then all of a sudden.
I agree with your post, BUT remember that we apartment-dwellers are often forgotten. Few landlords are cool with snaking an extension cable to your car. My own apartment has no parking at all (a good thing, in my view, since parking encourages auto reliance), so I've parked on the street since I moved here. Incidentally, I sold my car earlier this afternoon, and am moving to a city where living car-free is practical.
http://www.propertymanager.com/2015/08/electric-vehicle-char...
For apartments with no parking, I agree there is little solution to that other than not owning a vehicle.
Seems only applicable to people who intend to rent for many many years. If you move, you might need to pay to tear out your EV charging station.
They're getting a lot of help.
2) Political bans, taxation or subsidies creates incentives. This has a habit of bringing innovators and disruptors out of the woodwork.
"...At the end of 2014, 2.5 million passenger cars were registered in Norway. This corresponded to 491 passenger cars per 1,000 inhabitants..."
https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/statistikker/bil...
Tesla has some nice options, Renault and other have to, they are all either in the high price range or to small for a family to use as the their only car. The number of alternatives on the marked seems a bit limited, and I don't think nine years is enough to remedy that.
Also what are they going to do in respect to charges, will they mandate that all manufacturers use the same plug?
Also, fossil fuel based cars will not be banned. The goal only applies to new cars. In Norway, people on average keep their cars for 15 years or so, due to the high cost of owning a car (cars are taxed heavily here).
Tesla has already said that it expects batteries to cost $100/KWh by 2020. Although that may be a little optimistic, I don't think it's off by more than 2, maybe 3 years. By 2020 batteries could cost around $70/KWh, after which Li-Ion batteries at least, will probably stagnate, as it's close to raw material cost, but I expect some new type of batteries to emerge by then with potential for higher density/$.
But let's say batteries will only be $100/KWh by 2025. There was a recent report [1] saying that at $150/KWh, and considering charging and maintenance costs, which are about 1/3 that of a normal car, EVs should be competitive. So you may pay a little more for an EV upfront, but overall it should be very competitive.
I expect by 2025 we'll see 15,000 euro cars with 200+ mile ranges as well, possibly even from Tesla, but even more likely from Renault, Nissan, Hyundai, etc.
But beyond all of this, I suspect one of the reasons why Norway set up this deadline is because just like Denmark, it actually wants fewer cars on the road. So such a law is very compatible with that goal as well, although in a more indirect way. If you must have a (new) car after 2025, then it better be an EV. I think it makes a lot of sense, and I think we'll see a few more countries establish such goals by 2025, or 2030, as well.
[1] - http://www.techinsider.io/electric-vehicle-battery-cost-decr...
Yet somehow we made it work.
Initially used for lamps (Standard Oil was founded as an illumination company), motive power wasn't practical (aside from as an alternative to coal or wood for steam engines* until Nikolaus Otto perfected the four-stroke engine in 1876. Daimler started his own company in 1880, but didn't perfect a transport-capable engine until 1885.
Within 25 years, Henry Ford was selling Tin Lizzies to anyone who could come up with $260 in cash. Numbers of automobiles and companies exploded.
And yet total patents filed not only plateaued by 1925, but fell afterward. Not all the hard problems had been solved, but many were, and there's been comparatively little qualitative improvement in automobiles in the subsequent 90 years, particularly as compared with the 50 preceding.
From first inception to mass consumer product was the blink of an eye considering all of historical innovation in transport previously. We saw 6,000 years of transport expertise obsoleted within a generation.
I think its an interesting idea and it might work depending on how fast fuel cell and battery technology advances. I have never been a believer of the all battery solution as it imposes weight issues and as power levels increase charging issues arise. (damned if you do damned if you don't scenario)
If you want to push the industry further, you could also make money available for research into electric cars, batteries and related technology. You want do to the latter probably anyway because you need energy storage in order to make renewable energy work.
Modern cars are all tested for emissions by the manufacturers because of US and EU requirements. I'm sure Norway has regulation for that as well. Cars that are so old that they're untested, you could just assume as having the worst possible grade in tests. That's probably not far from the truth.
Much of that is already happening. In the EU gas is taxed quite heavily for example. Germany has environmental zones to combat air pollution that certain cars aren't allowed to enter due to their emissions. Germany has also plans on subsidizing electric car sales.
Taxing emissions makes sense because emissions are a direct externality. But when you subsidies replacements you are essentially betting on the most efficient solution, not at all certain it would be the best, you also introduce new externalities for people to profit on unfairly.
I'm guessing it would be much more effective to tax emissions, do so aggressively, and then just pass back the money directly as a public dividend. This way the market has full freedom to pick a way forward, any way.
We also have some special privileges for EV cars. Like free parking on state/county-owned parking places and the option of driving in the public transport lane. Special privileges are supposed to go away in a couple of years though, due to the increase in EV owners.
We've had some problems with this after the "emission-test-cheating" scandal though.
That was what I meant with betting, the reason we have free markets in the first place (as opposed to central planning) is because we simply can't plan such things without them, it's to complex.
Public transportation is promoted way more than EV. And special EV privileges will disappear over the next couple of years. EV, hydrogen and hybrids will still be cheaper due to us taxing emissions, however.
Not to indicate that Norway doesn't have a free market, it mostly does. Exceptions are alcohol and public transit (state secured monopolies).
Half the legislatures in the country passed laws to ban any ban on the old lightbulbs.
I think some politicians ran on it, remember Michelle Bachmann?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Lighting_Energy_Policy#Li...
If they limited gas powered cars the government would probably be overthrown by some of the same lightbulb people.
2025 does seem a bit soon but it would be nice to have a target to talk about, ie. no new gas cars made starting 2050 (people would horde them though)