6 ms·

Every time Norway comes up as an example… there are 5.5m people in Norway vs 334m in the USA.

by rad_gruchalski 3y ago

pfdietz 3y ago
Can you explain the logic behind this attempt at an excuse?
- rad_gruchalski 3y ago
  Sure. Norway sits at massine natgas and oil reserves. Hundreds of billions in savings, small population, small area with most of the population around a coast make it easy to transition fast.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Ah, so not just small population.
    - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
      Normally I go about „there are almost as many people living in metro Berlin than in Norway”. 5.2m vs 5.5m. Small population with tons of free money to subsidise the transition to ev. > Norway Number of Registered Vehicles was reported at 5,410,000 Unit in Dec 2022. with 110k to 190k new cars registered annually sounds doable, no?
  - whyenot 3y ago
    This isn’t really explaining the logic behind your original statement. You said “there are 5.5m people in Norway vs 334m in the USA.” Why does the population difference matter so much? As a counterexample, California has over 40 million people and has the highest EV adoption of any US state.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      For one thing they wouldn't be able to produce 90-100+% of the electricity they need from just from hydro if the population was much higher. Also low population coupled with a lot of revenue from oil/gas means that EVs are much more affordable (or rather ICE cars were very expensive due to taxes, so EVs still seemed like a great deal to many Norwegians despite being very expensive).
      - audunw 3y ago
        It would in principle be more efficient to burn oil/gas in a power plant and use some of it to fuel EVs. The CO2 emissions would also be lower. So this isn’t an excuse either. The energy is there, the political willpower is not. EVs are now more or less cheaper in total costs of ownership now, so with some political will the transition could have been faster without hurting the wallet in the long term. Some special car loan policies might have been needed though. There simply are no excuses. With a big political push this transition could have been kickstarted with the GM EV1. Some extra research grants and some political pressure on cheap licensing terms for LFP batteries could have helped get batteries to where they need to be. But there’s also no use thinking about the world that could’ve been. There are many reasons why USA isn’t where Norway is. The point that stands is that Norway has shown that it can be done, and that should inform USA and others in how they move forward. Most of the excuses made now don’t make sense. Norway isn’t an ideal country for EVs. Winter is brutal on range. Most American live in warmer climates. Norwegians also love to drive to far away mountain cabins in winter. My Norwegian relatives do more road trips than my family in the US. Some excuses have some truth to them. Norway does have cheap electricity. But USA has resources Norway don’t. All in all the excuses don’t add up to anything that can justify inaction going forward.
        qwytw 3y ago
        >It would in principle be more efficient to burn oil/gas in a power plant and use some of it to fuel EVs Not coal though. Wouldn't it better to primarily focus on closing every single coal plant first? (also I would assume the same is the case for the type of 'oil' burnt in power plants, only gas is relatively "clean". Then you also have all kinds of other pollution that's much more harmful directly than CO2) > All in all the excuses Norway was very well positioned to shift to EV because of the very high taxes on new cars there, they just had to cut taxes to do that. Doing the equivalent (i.e. 50-75% tax on ICE cars) in the US or most other countries is simply politically infeasible. I know moralizing can be fun but it doesn't really offer real practical solutions. > EVs are now more or less cheaper in total costs of ownership now That really depends on the state (of course higher taxes on petrol would help but again, politically infeasible)
pavlov 3y ago
The average U.S. state is roughly the size of Norway. So if you prefer, the question could be why not a single American state is anywhere near Norway in the EV transition.
- rad_gruchalski 3y ago
  No clue. You guys like big things? Cybertruck and Hummer ev come to mind.
- rcruzeiro 3y ago
  Are you talking about size? Because if you are, that’s not really accurate. Norway might not be huge when you compare it to an entire continent, but it’s definitely not small. Plus, it’s got way more geographical challenges than your average US state.
  - pavlov 3y ago
    I meant population primarily. Norway is roughly the size of Montana with the population of Minnesota.
    - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
      Three questions: 1) is the population of Montana scattered anywhere close to what is it like in Norway? 2) Is there abundant hydro power in Montana, like in Norway? 3) do people in Montana pay maximum income tax of 17% and not having to save for their pension because Montana has a $1.5 trillion pension fund?
      - pavlov 3y ago
        Are these three the precise combination of factors that must be present for EVs to break through? Would be interesting to see the research on that. American states are pretty different. Many have scattered populations. Some have abundant hydro power. There’s even a state with a permanent fund for oil income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund The Alaska fund is smaller than the Norwegian one, but it pays out an annual income to all residents, so it’s not really comparable either. I suspect the Alaska fund may have been one inspiration for the Norwegian model.
bluejekyll 3y ago
One thing to point out is that different areas of the US are doing better and worse on a lot of things. This is a good example. It would be better to look at the different metropolises of the US when talking about various things like ev adoption, bike usage, etc. We have many areas of the US that have similar density to that of Norway.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Even then its hard to compare to europe because US metros are so much larger in population and size. Oslo has a smaller population than Columbus, Ohio which isn’t even a large or very significant city. It ends up being an apples to oranges comparison unless you subset an area of the US that has a similar population density and demography as a similarly sized area in Europe, and no one does that because that means splitting metros into weird pieces that people find harder to think about than “city x vs city y.”
  - bluejekyll 3y ago
    The reason I think Metros is more important than either city v city, or State v State, is that many metros can cross state lines, and may include multiple cities. The Bay Area is a good example of the latter with Oakland and San Francisco being in the same metro area. It’s the metro where things like public transit become valuable options, or charging infrastructure for commutes is important, etc.
  - audunw 3y ago
    You can definitely find a similar metropolitan areas to Oslo in the US. I find Portland to be quite similar. So why don’t they have a similar adoption rate? I don’t see how the “but USA is bigger” means that ALL of USA is completely off the hook.
- arcade79 3y ago
  Yes. You've got Nebraska, Idaho, Nevada and Kansas! THey all have a lower population density than Norway! Therefore the other states don't need to bother.. EDIT: Ugh, thinking, typing and using a search engine. The above is wrong. They all have a higher population density than Norway. The following states have a lower population density: Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota The argument stands, but the list of states was wrong. ;)
pokstad 3y ago
The size of the USA is a better argument. Infrastructure needs to spread to cover the populated areas which are huge.
- arcade79 3y ago
  Population density of the US is ~5 times higher than in Norway. The distance between Lindesnes and Nordkapp is greater than the distance between Minneapolis and Houston.
arcade79 3y ago
Yes, but the population density of the US is ~5 times greater than Norway, so this isn't really an argument.
- qwytw 3y ago
  Doesen't that just reinforce their point? Small population and large area (with a lot of mountains) allows them to generate most of their electricity supply from cheap/clean hydro. Also they have very high revenue per person from oil sales.
  - arcade79 3y ago
    The revenues from the oil sales goes into the pension fund. Not really applicable.
    - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
      How is that not applicable when one doesn’t need to save for their pension?
      - qwytw 3y ago
        To be fair taxes in Norway are not at all low.
        rad_gruchalski 3y ago
        https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/rates/bracket-tax/ https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/rates/bracket-tax/ Maximum is 17.6%. I pay 42% in Germany. I happily take those Norwegian „high taxes”.
        qwytw 3y ago
        No it isn't (an average Norwegian pays close to 40%). There is basically no difference between taxes paid by employee or employer (besides the lack of transparency built into the tax system) all of is is still coming from the same pot. Denmark is pretty much the only country in Europe that isn't purposefully trying to trick their taxpayers... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe
plasticchris 3y ago
Totally. The entire country would be a midsize state in the US. Thinking about it I’m not totally sure so I looked up Norway’s size and population density, which seems to most closely match Kansas (37/mi^2 vs 35.9 for KS) and the land area of KS is a bit less than half, so it seems two kansases is a decent approximation for Norway, ignoring the coast/shape, just for a sense of scale. Of course Norway has a 1.5T fund and maybe they spend more? Figuring the per capita budget for both they are pretty close, so apart from cultural and topographical differences this seems like a pretty close fit.
- arcade79 3y ago
  Except you should look at the shape of the country. And the fact that we don't spend much out of that fund. Hint. Minneapolis to Houston is a shorter distance than Lindesnes to Nordkapp
  - plasticchris 3y ago
    Yeah, that’s what I meant by topographical differences, and my numbers for spending came from actual spending, as disbursed from the fund. I’m just looking for a better yardstick, and I have experienced Kansas firsthand. Lots of comments about the relative sizes of countries and I was curious what some of the basic numbers looked like.

Every time Norway comes up as an example… there are 5.5m people in Norway vs 334m in the USA.

pfdietz 3y ago

Can you explain the logic behind this attempt at an excuse?

rad_gruchalski 3y ago
Sure. Norway sits at massine natgas and oil reserves. Hundreds of billions in savings, small population, small area with most of the population around a coast make it easy to transition fast.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Ah, so not just small population.
  - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
    Normally I go about „there are almost as many people living in metro Berlin than in Norway”. 5.2m vs 5.5m. Small population with tons of free money to subsidise the transition to ev. > Norway Number of Registered Vehicles was reported at 5,410,000 Unit in Dec 2022. with 110k to 190k new cars registered annually sounds doable, no?
- whyenot 3y ago
  This isn’t really explaining the logic behind your original statement. You said “there are 5.5m people in Norway vs 334m in the USA.” Why does the population difference matter so much? As a counterexample, California has over 40 million people and has the highest EV adoption of any US state.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    For one thing they wouldn't be able to produce 90-100+% of the electricity they need from just from hydro if the population was much higher. Also low population coupled with a lot of revenue from oil/gas means that EVs are much more affordable (or rather ICE cars were very expensive due to taxes, so EVs still seemed like a great deal to many Norwegians despite being very expensive).
    - audunw 3y ago
      It would in principle be more efficient to burn oil/gas in a power plant and use some of it to fuel EVs. The CO2 emissions would also be lower. So this isn’t an excuse either. The energy is there, the political willpower is not. EVs are now more or less cheaper in total costs of ownership now, so with some political will the transition could have been faster without hurting the wallet in the long term. Some special car loan policies might have been needed though. There simply are no excuses. With a big political push this transition could have been kickstarted with the GM EV1. Some extra research grants and some political pressure on cheap licensing terms for LFP batteries could have helped get batteries to where they need to be. But there’s also no use thinking about the world that could’ve been. There are many reasons why USA isn’t where Norway is. The point that stands is that Norway has shown that it can be done, and that should inform USA and others in how they move forward. Most of the excuses made now don’t make sense. Norway isn’t an ideal country for EVs. Winter is brutal on range. Most American live in warmer climates. Norwegians also love to drive to far away mountain cabins in winter. My Norwegian relatives do more road trips than my family in the US. Some excuses have some truth to them. Norway does have cheap electricity. But USA has resources Norway don’t. All in all the excuses don’t add up to anything that can justify inaction going forward.
      - qwytw 3y ago
        >It would in principle be more efficient to burn oil/gas in a power plant and use some of it to fuel EVs Not coal though. Wouldn't it better to primarily focus on closing every single coal plant first? (also I would assume the same is the case for the type of 'oil' burnt in power plants, only gas is relatively "clean". Then you also have all kinds of other pollution that's much more harmful directly than CO2) > All in all the excuses Norway was very well positioned to shift to EV because of the very high taxes on new cars there, they just had to cut taxes to do that. Doing the equivalent (i.e. 50-75% tax on ICE cars) in the US or most other countries is simply politically infeasible. I know moralizing can be fun but it doesn't really offer real practical solutions. > EVs are now more or less cheaper in total costs of ownership now That really depends on the state (of course higher taxes on petrol would help but again, politically infeasible)

pavlov 3y ago

The average U.S. state is roughly the size of Norway. So if you prefer, the question could be why not a single American state is anywhere near Norway in the EV transition.

rad_gruchalski 3y ago
No clue. You guys like big things? Cybertruck and Hummer ev come to mind.
rcruzeiro 3y ago
Are you talking about size? Because if you are, that’s not really accurate. Norway might not be huge when you compare it to an entire continent, but it’s definitely not small. Plus, it’s got way more geographical challenges than your average US state.
- pavlov 3y ago
  I meant population primarily. Norway is roughly the size of Montana with the population of Minnesota.
  - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
    Three questions: 1) is the population of Montana scattered anywhere close to what is it like in Norway? 2) Is there abundant hydro power in Montana, like in Norway? 3) do people in Montana pay maximum income tax of 17% and not having to save for their pension because Montana has a $1.5 trillion pension fund?
    - pavlov 3y ago
      Are these three the precise combination of factors that must be present for EVs to break through? Would be interesting to see the research on that. American states are pretty different. Many have scattered populations. Some have abundant hydro power. There’s even a state with a permanent fund for oil income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund The Alaska fund is smaller than the Norwegian one, but it pays out an annual income to all residents, so it’s not really comparable either. I suspect the Alaska fund may have been one inspiration for the Norwegian model.

bluejekyll 3y ago

One thing to point out is that different areas of the US are doing better and worse on a lot of things. This is a good example. It would be better to look at the different metropolises of the US when talking about various things like ev adoption, bike usage, etc. We have many areas of the US that have similar density to that of Norway.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
Even then its hard to compare to europe because US metros are so much larger in population and size. Oslo has a smaller population than Columbus, Ohio which isn’t even a large or very significant city. It ends up being an apples to oranges comparison unless you subset an area of the US that has a similar population density and demography as a similarly sized area in Europe, and no one does that because that means splitting metros into weird pieces that people find harder to think about than “city x vs city y.”
- bluejekyll 3y ago
  The reason I think Metros is more important than either city v city, or State v State, is that many metros can cross state lines, and may include multiple cities. The Bay Area is a good example of the latter with Oakland and San Francisco being in the same metro area. It’s the metro where things like public transit become valuable options, or charging infrastructure for commutes is important, etc.
- audunw 3y ago
  You can definitely find a similar metropolitan areas to Oslo in the US. I find Portland to be quite similar. So why don’t they have a similar adoption rate? I don’t see how the “but USA is bigger” means that ALL of USA is completely off the hook.
arcade79 3y ago
Yes. You've got Nebraska, Idaho, Nevada and Kansas! THey all have a lower population density than Norway! Therefore the other states don't need to bother.. EDIT: Ugh, thinking, typing and using a search engine. The above is wrong. They all have a higher population density than Norway. The following states have a lower population density: Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota The argument stands, but the list of states was wrong. ;)

pokstad 3y ago

The size of the USA is a better argument. Infrastructure needs to spread to cover the populated areas which are huge.

arcade79 3y ago
Population density of the US is ~5 times higher than in Norway. The distance between Lindesnes and Nordkapp is greater than the distance between Minneapolis and Houston.

arcade79 3y ago

Yes, but the population density of the US is ~5 times greater than Norway, so this isn't really an argument.

qwytw 3y ago
Doesen't that just reinforce their point? Small population and large area (with a lot of mountains) allows them to generate most of their electricity supply from cheap/clean hydro. Also they have very high revenue per person from oil sales.
- arcade79 3y ago
  The revenues from the oil sales goes into the pension fund. Not really applicable.
  - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
    How is that not applicable when one doesn’t need to save for their pension?
    - qwytw 3y ago
      To be fair taxes in Norway are not at all low.
      - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
        https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/rates/bracket-tax/ https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/rates/bracket-tax/ Maximum is 17.6%. I pay 42% in Germany. I happily take those Norwegian „high taxes”.
        qwytw 3y ago
        No it isn't (an average Norwegian pays close to 40%). There is basically no difference between taxes paid by employee or employer (besides the lack of transparency built into the tax system) all of is is still coming from the same pot. Denmark is pretty much the only country in Europe that isn't purposefully trying to trick their taxpayers... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe

plasticchris 3y ago

Totally. The entire country would be a midsize state in the US. Thinking about it I’m not totally sure so I looked up Norway’s size and population density, which seems to most closely match Kansas (37/mi^2 vs 35.9 for KS) and the land area of KS is a bit less than half, so it seems two kansases is a decent approximation for Norway, ignoring the coast/shape, just for a sense of scale. Of course Norway has a 1.5T fund and maybe they spend more? Figuring the per capita budget for both they are pretty close, so apart from cultural and topographical differences this seems like a pretty close fit.

arcade79 3y ago
Except you should look at the shape of the country. And the fact that we don't spend much out of that fund. Hint. Minneapolis to Houston is a shorter distance than Lindesnes to Nordkapp
- plasticchris 3y ago
  Yeah, that’s what I meant by topographical differences, and my numbers for spending came from actual spending, as disbursed from the fund. I’m just looking for a better yardstick, and I have experienced Kansas firsthand. Lots of comments about the relative sizes of countries and I was curious what some of the basic numbers looked like.