10 ms·

Norway reportedly agrees on banning new sales of gas-powered cars by 2025

206 points by moonfern 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hkjgkjy 10y ago
Off topic: Anyone watch Okkupert (occupied in English)? The French-Norwegian made drama about how a modern European country would act if war were to happen there today (like it kind of has in Ukraine...). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/
- ryanschneider 10y ago
  Yes, great series (available on Netflix in the US). The series starts with Norway ending oil and gas production to combat global warming, which the rest of Europe and the world isn't too happy with.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Not really off-topic, since the motivation of the evil Europeans in that show was to force Norway to continue to produce oil after Norwegians decided they no longer needed it. 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...
- larsiusprime 10y ago
  (Norwegian here). Great show, but it's so hilariously and transparently self-flattering to the Norwegian sense of self. 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
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Yeah the show is pandering to the whole "Putin scare" that MSM has going.
  - hkjgkjy 10y ago
    > 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. I'd love to watch that one, haha! Although I have to say, being scandinavian (🇸🇪) 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.
- malkia 10y ago
  I like the idea and the story, but it felt like there were dozen of characters, and everything revolved only around them. As if there was only one restaurant, one journalist, one bodyguard, one of this and one of that, and somehow they were related even before the story began. That would be perfectly fine for a sci-fi, superheroes, or where the story needs it (Sense8), but here it felt a bit strange.... Though that to be said, once you accept this little peculiarity, the show was good, and I'll watch the 2nd one too... 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!
jacknews 10y ago
Possibly good news of course, but I find something is a bit out of place given this is coming from a petro-state. They could surely have more impact on global warming etc by simply shutting down oil exports.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Not really, oil is fungible so they'd just encourage other countries to produce more. There will need to be global cooperation to keep oil in the ground, otherwise one country could defect and make a fortune.
- nightcracker 10y ago
  Let's also not forget oil has hundreds of applications outside of fossil fuel.
wrong_variable 10y ago
To anyone who is thinking: 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.
- cm3 10y ago
  It's a matter of different politics. Norway chose not to basically let private companies take all the profit from natural resources, while in the UK there's this weird system in place that has politicians ruining public orgs like infrastructure providers to afterwards claim they fixed it, once they pushed for privatization, and all they did was get it back to where it was before in quality of service. After that, it's profit-driven and the population has to fight for laws to keep up existing quality standards they pay for with taxes. There are European countries like Finland where you don't worry which school your kids go to because there are no good or bad school districts. Same for hospitals. If you have to pay taxes for public services, then it must be fair and of equal quality for everybody, or you must turn it all into a Friedman-style privatize-everything system, which may or may not work but sounds thought through and might.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Norway is turning UK year by year...
    - to3m 10y ago
      Can you elaborate?
      - kwhitefoot 10y ago
        The current government wants to sell off the Flytog (Airport Train). This is a state owned enterprise that even the seriously capitalist Norwegian financial magazine Kapital says is one of the best run companies in the country and should not be privatised. There have been serious suggestions that Statoil should be sold off completely. The electricity system has been privatised even though most of the energy is generated by rain that can hardly be said to be owned by anyone.
moonfern 10y ago
It's not that petrol cars will be forbidden but buying a new non zero emission car in 2025 will be financially not beneficial, according to Norwegian press. 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.
- geon 10y ago
  The US should do it too, if only for ending it's dependency on imported oil.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    The US is a net exporter of Oil, but like with many other products it imports as almost much as it exports. 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.
    - to3m 10y ago
      The EIA weekly status report has domestic production at 8.7mbpd, imports at 7.4mbpd and exports at 0.5mbpd, which doesn't really count as a net exporter (or I don't think so at any rate). 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.)
- vpeters25 10y ago
  This sounds like a more balanced approach than the linked article which claims an outright ban on oil-based vehicles. 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.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
There's been a few stories like this, from a few different governments and many reactions suggest this is outlandish grandstanding, which puzzles me, as it seems eminently achievable from what I can gather. Simply good forward planning really (one of the comments suggest it's a target, not a "ban" as such).
Shivetya 10y ago
what are they going to do between then and now to get older vehicles out of service? are there emissions tests in Norway? Do they have a cut off date, as in the car is beyond a certain age it is not tested? Do they treat trucks and such the same? 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)
- geon 10y ago
  The title speciffically states it is about sales of new vehicles, not existing ones.
- DasIch 10y ago
  There is no need for the government to set up a system to make sure older vehicles are taken out of service. You just use a combination of taxes and subsidies. You tax gas, vehicles based on their emissions or both to make old cars unaffordable, so people will take them out of service. On the other hand you make electric cars more affordable and usable through subsidies on electric cars and infrastructure for them. 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.
  - CuriousSkeptic 10y ago
    They should probably skip subsidies though. 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.
cm2187 10y ago
What I don't get is that this is a pretty confident bet that batteries will dramatically improve. It's not a very densely populated country. It's not like you can have a charging station every 3km. Usually law follows technology. Here it seems to anticipate it massively.
- mtgx 10y ago
  It's not as outlandish as you may think. 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-decreases-2016-3 http://www.techinsider.io/electric-vehicle-battery-cost-decr...
  - arkad 10y ago
    +1 And there is another smart kid in the class, ie. Toyota with its Mirai
andrewclunn 10y ago
Passing laws now about what SHOULD be in the future is a way for politicians to make it seem like they're doing something when they have no real solutions. It will be technology and industry innovators and disruptors that make this possible, but I'm sure the intelligentsia and politicians will give "forward thinking policy makers" the credit.
- thesimon 10y ago
  So instead of helping EV companies ("industry innovators and disruptors") by making their products more attractive, they should just do nothing and hope some "disruptors" come around?
  - astrodust 10y ago
    How many hundreds of millions more in tax breaks and subsidies does Tesla need? They're getting a lot of help.
    - Skinney 10y ago
      Forget Tesla. Stuff like this makes it interesting for other companies to join the competition. And competition is good.
- Skinney 10y ago
  1) This is not a law or a planned ban. It's a mission statement. A target. You'd be hard pressed to find a government more opposed to bans than the one we have right now. Chances are they will increase tax on emissions to reach this target, but they could also do nothing and hope the market will sort it out on its own. 2) Political bans, taxation or subsidies creates incentives. This has a habit of bringing innovators and disruptors out of the woodwork.
drdaeman 10y ago
I get it that they want to use electricity as the primary energy source for vehicles, and make all sort of fossil fuels non-viable options, but still curious - does "gas" generally means just/mostly gasoline, or applies to LPG as well? (Just that in my native tongue a word "benzin" is used for gasoline, and "gas" is always about propane/butane mixes.)
- mtgx 10y ago
  Americans refer to petrol/benzin when they say gas.
- astrodust 10y ago
  In American/Canadian parlance "gas" as discussing flammable fuel almost always means "gasoline" with exceptions like "gas main" or "gas canister" where it refers to "natural gas" (methane) or in the case of the canister, possibly propane, but usually people say "propane canister" or "propane tank" to be specific.
buckbova 10y ago
It'd be really something if they ban oil production, at least beyond what's required domestically for manufacturing.
pmyjavec 10y ago
Better late than never?
ck2 10y ago
Can you imagine this in the USA after the response by the right to limiting just incandescent lightbulbs? 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#Light_Bulb_Freedom_of_Choice_Act 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)
boona 10y ago
Thank god the US is so innovative because they would never be able to reach their goals.
- Throwawaaaay 10y ago
  You mean the company run by a South African?
pinaceae 10y ago
what about trucks, heavy machinery and motorcycles? battery tech is not there for all of those. range/power/density work against batteries in those. current models all suck.
- astrodust 10y ago
  There was a time when it was laughable that the "automobile" would ever replace the horse. It broke down constantly, it had such anemic engine power that it could barely get up a hill, and the manufacturers of these vehicles were just a bunch of people in a ramshackle garage. Yet somehow we made it work.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Large reserves of liquid petroleum were first proven viable in 1869. Even then, supplies were uncertain in the US until 1930, at which point the largest onshore find in the lower-48 states to that time and the present was discovered, the East Texas Oil Field. 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.
- Skinney 10y ago
  Trucks and heavy machinery are have a later target (2030 if I remember correctly). The 2025 goal applies to cars for private use and public transportation (Oslo, the capitol, plans to have zero-emission busses by 2020).
michahell 10y ago
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/
michahell 10y ago
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/
SCAQTony 10y ago
Norway's population is less than half the size of L.A. County. (5.1-million rounded up) A very ambitious and commendable project but easily accomplished in a country with such a low population. Ford a alone makes almost 2.5-million cars a year. "...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/bilreg/aar/2015-03-25 https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/statistikker/bil...
superuser2 10y ago
I'll keep banging on this since I haven't yet heard a satisfactory answer: what are you going to do about people who park on the street or in garages they do not own? 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?
- danielharan 10y ago
  People will figure it out. Parking lot owners will have an incentive to provide charging stations; leave your car keys to the attendant and they'll get to it over the day. 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.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  Charging posts on the streets and in public parkings is becoming more and more common. Also, electricity is 230V so charging at home is quicker than with 110. 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.
  - superuser2 10y ago
    Thanks, that explains why this isn't crazy for Norway. 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.
- Skinney 10y ago
johansch 10y ago
If they want to save the world they should stop extracting oil and selling it to people who will burn it.
aftbit 10y ago
This is a very bold bet. It would not work in the US, at least without some kind of revolution in public transit. There are plenty of places where not owning a car means you basically cannot have a job or a social life, and many of these are far from any existing EV stations. 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.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > It will take a long time to replicate the network of petrol stations that covers basically all US roads. 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.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    "Every home is a slow charger. Tesla has Superchargers covering most of the first world." 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.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Make it mandatory property managers support EV charging stations, as California has done. http://www.propertymanager.com/2015/08/electric-vehicle-charging-stations-for-california-landlords/ 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.
mrweasel 10y ago
While I think it's great that they've set a date, I think it's perhaps a little premature. 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?
- Skinney 10y ago
  There are alternatives to fossil fuels besides EV. 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).
WalterBright 10y ago
Bans make for good press, but are an inefficient club to the economy. A more sensible way is to simply tax the carbon content of fuel, and raise the tax until it becomes economically worthwhile to switch most uses to alternatives.

206 points by moonfern 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Off topic: Anyone watch Okkupert (occupied in English)? The French-Norwegian made drama about how a modern European country would act if war were to happen there today (like it kind of has in Ukraine...). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/

ryanschneider 10y ago
Yes, great series (available on Netflix in the US). The series starts with Norway ending oil and gas production to combat global warming, which the rest of Europe and the world isn't too happy with.
jessaustin 10y ago
Not really off-topic, since the motivation of the evil Europeans in that show was to force Norway to continue to produce oil after Norwegians decided they no longer needed it. 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...
larsiusprime 10y ago
(Norwegian here). Great show, but it's so hilariously and transparently self-flattering to the Norwegian sense of self. 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
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Yeah the show is pandering to the whole "Putin scare" that MSM has going.
- hkjgkjy 10y ago
  > 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. I'd love to watch that one, haha! Although I have to say, being scandinavian (🇸🇪) 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.
malkia 10y ago
I like the idea and the story, but it felt like there were dozen of characters, and everything revolved only around them. As if there was only one restaurant, one journalist, one bodyguard, one of this and one of that, and somehow they were related even before the story began. That would be perfectly fine for a sci-fi, superheroes, or where the story needs it (Sense8), but here it felt a bit strange.... Though that to be said, once you accept this little peculiarity, the show was good, and I'll watch the 2nd one too... 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!

jacknews 10y ago

Possibly good news of course, but I find something is a bit out of place given this is coming from a petro-state. They could surely have more impact on global warming etc by simply shutting down oil exports.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Not really, oil is fungible so they'd just encourage other countries to produce more. There will need to be global cooperation to keep oil in the ground, otherwise one country could defect and make a fortune.
nightcracker 10y ago
Let's also not forget oil has hundreds of applications outside of fossil fuel.

wrong_variable 10y ago

To anyone who is thinking: 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.

cm3 10y ago
It's a matter of different politics. Norway chose not to basically let private companies take all the profit from natural resources, while in the UK there's this weird system in place that has politicians ruining public orgs like infrastructure providers to afterwards claim they fixed it, once they pushed for privatization, and all they did was get it back to where it was before in quality of service. After that, it's profit-driven and the population has to fight for laws to keep up existing quality standards they pay for with taxes. There are European countries like Finland where you don't worry which school your kids go to because there are no good or bad school districts. Same for hospitals. If you have to pay taxes for public services, then it must be fair and of equal quality for everybody, or you must turn it all into a Friedman-style privatize-everything system, which may or may not work but sounds thought through and might.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Norway is turning UK year by year...
  - to3m 10y ago
    Can you elaborate?
    - kwhitefoot 10y ago
      The current government wants to sell off the Flytog (Airport Train). This is a state owned enterprise that even the seriously capitalist Norwegian financial magazine Kapital says is one of the best run companies in the country and should not be privatised. There have been serious suggestions that Statoil should be sold off completely. The electricity system has been privatised even though most of the energy is generated by rain that can hardly be said to be owned by anyone.

moonfern 10y ago

It's not that petrol cars will be forbidden but buying a new non zero emission car in 2025 will be financially not beneficial, according to Norwegian press. 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.

geon 10y ago
The US should do it too, if only for ending it's dependency on imported oil.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  The US is a net exporter of Oil, but like with many other products it imports as almost much as it exports. 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.
  - to3m 10y ago
    The EIA weekly status report has domestic production at 8.7mbpd, imports at 7.4mbpd and exports at 0.5mbpd, which doesn't really count as a net exporter (or I don't think so at any rate). 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.)
vpeters25 10y ago
This sounds like a more balanced approach than the linked article which claims an outright ban on oil-based vehicles. 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.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

There's been a few stories like this, from a few different governments and many reactions suggest this is outlandish grandstanding, which puzzles me, as it seems eminently achievable from what I can gather. Simply good forward planning really (one of the comments suggest it's a target, not a "ban" as such).

Shivetya 10y ago

what are they going to do between then and now to get older vehicles out of service? are there emissions tests in Norway? Do they have a cut off date, as in the car is beyond a certain age it is not tested? Do they treat trucks and such the same? 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)

geon 10y ago
The title speciffically states it is about sales of new vehicles, not existing ones.
DasIch 10y ago
There is no need for the government to set up a system to make sure older vehicles are taken out of service. You just use a combination of taxes and subsidies. You tax gas, vehicles based on their emissions or both to make old cars unaffordable, so people will take them out of service. On the other hand you make electric cars more affordable and usable through subsidies on electric cars and infrastructure for them. 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.
- CuriousSkeptic 10y ago
  They should probably skip subsidies though. 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.

cm2187 10y ago

What I don't get is that this is a pretty confident bet that batteries will dramatically improve. It's not a very densely populated country. It's not like you can have a charging station every 3km. Usually law follows technology. Here it seems to anticipate it massively.

mtgx 10y ago
It's not as outlandish as you may think. 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-decreases-2016-3 http://www.techinsider.io/electric-vehicle-battery-cost-decr...
- arkad 10y ago
  +1 And there is another smart kid in the class, ie. Toyota with its Mirai

andrewclunn 10y ago

Passing laws now about what SHOULD be in the future is a way for politicians to make it seem like they're doing something when they have no real solutions. It will be technology and industry innovators and disruptors that make this possible, but I'm sure the intelligentsia and politicians will give "forward thinking policy makers" the credit.

thesimon 10y ago
So instead of helping EV companies ("industry innovators and disruptors") by making their products more attractive, they should just do nothing and hope some "disruptors" come around?
- astrodust 10y ago
  How many hundreds of millions more in tax breaks and subsidies does Tesla need? They're getting a lot of help.
  - Skinney 10y ago
    Forget Tesla. Stuff like this makes it interesting for other companies to join the competition. And competition is good.
Skinney 10y ago
1) This is not a law or a planned ban. It's a mission statement. A target. You'd be hard pressed to find a government more opposed to bans than the one we have right now. Chances are they will increase tax on emissions to reach this target, but they could also do nothing and hope the market will sort it out on its own. 2) Political bans, taxation or subsidies creates incentives. This has a habit of bringing innovators and disruptors out of the woodwork.

drdaeman 10y ago

I get it that they want to use electricity as the primary energy source for vehicles, and make all sort of fossil fuels non-viable options, but still curious - does "gas" generally means just/mostly gasoline, or applies to LPG as well? (Just that in my native tongue a word "benzin" is used for gasoline, and "gas" is always about propane/butane mixes.)

mtgx 10y ago
Americans refer to petrol/benzin when they say gas.
astrodust 10y ago
In American/Canadian parlance "gas" as discussing flammable fuel almost always means "gasoline" with exceptions like "gas main" or "gas canister" where it refers to "natural gas" (methane) or in the case of the canister, possibly propane, but usually people say "propane canister" or "propane tank" to be specific.

buckbova 10y ago

It'd be really something if they ban oil production, at least beyond what's required domestically for manufacturing.

pmyjavec 10y ago

Better late than never?

ck2 10y ago

Can you imagine this in the USA after the response by the right to limiting just incandescent lightbulbs? 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#Light_Bulb_Freedom_of_Choice_Act 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)

boona 10y ago

Thank god the US is so innovative because they would never be able to reach their goals.

Throwawaaaay 10y ago
You mean the company run by a South African?

pinaceae 10y ago

what about trucks, heavy machinery and motorcycles? battery tech is not there for all of those. range/power/density work against batteries in those. current models all suck.

astrodust 10y ago
There was a time when it was laughable that the "automobile" would ever replace the horse. It broke down constantly, it had such anemic engine power that it could barely get up a hill, and the manufacturers of these vehicles were just a bunch of people in a ramshackle garage. Yet somehow we made it work.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Large reserves of liquid petroleum were first proven viable in 1869. Even then, supplies were uncertain in the US until 1930, at which point the largest onshore find in the lower-48 states to that time and the present was discovered, the East Texas Oil Field. 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.
Skinney 10y ago
Trucks and heavy machinery are have a later target (2030 if I remember correctly). The 2025 goal applies to cars for private use and public transportation (Oslo, the capitol, plans to have zero-emission busses by 2020).

michahell 10y ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/

michahell 10y ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4192998/

SCAQTony 10y ago

Norway's population is less than half the size of L.A. County. (5.1-million rounded up) A very ambitious and commendable project but easily accomplished in a country with such a low population. Ford a alone makes almost 2.5-million cars a year. "...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/bilreg/aar/2015-03-25 https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/statistikker/bil...

superuser2 10y ago

I'll keep banging on this since I haven't yet heard a satisfactory answer: what are you going to do about people who park on the street or in garages they do not own? 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?

danielharan 10y ago
People will figure it out. Parking lot owners will have an incentive to provide charging stations; leave your car keys to the attendant and they'll get to it over the day. 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.
alkonaut 10y ago
Charging posts on the streets and in public parkings is becoming more and more common. Also, electricity is 230V so charging at home is quicker than with 110. 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.
- superuser2 10y ago
  Thanks, that explains why this isn't crazy for Norway. 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.
Skinney 10y ago

johansch 10y ago

If they want to save the world they should stop extracting oil and selling it to people who will burn it.

aftbit 10y ago

This is a very bold bet. It would not work in the US, at least without some kind of revolution in public transit. There are plenty of places where not owning a car means you basically cannot have a job or a social life, and many of these are far from any existing EV stations. 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.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> It will take a long time to replicate the network of petrol stations that covers basically all US roads. 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.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  "Every home is a slow charger. Tesla has Superchargers covering most of the first world." 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.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Make it mandatory property managers support EV charging stations, as California has done. http://www.propertymanager.com/2015/08/electric-vehicle-charging-stations-for-california-landlords/ 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.

mrweasel 10y ago

While I think it's great that they've set a date, I think it's perhaps a little premature. 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?

Skinney 10y ago
There are alternatives to fossil fuels besides EV. 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).

WalterBright 10y ago

Bans make for good press, but are an inefficient club to the economy. A more sensible way is to simply tax the carbon content of fuel, and raise the tax until it becomes economically worthwhile to switch most uses to alternatives.