5 ms·

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 di

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)
rad_gruchalski 3y ago
> This isn’t really explaining the logic behind your original statement. Hence I clarified.

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)

rad_gruchalski 3y ago

> This isn’t really explaining the logic behind your original statement. Hence I clarified.