Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Power

Norway Becomes First Country To Sell More Electric Cars Than Petrol Vehicles (independent.co.uk) 165

Norway has become the first country to have sold more electric cars than petrol, hybrid, and diesel engines in a year. The Independent reports: Electric cars comprised 54% of all new vehicle sales in Norway for 2019. The Norwegian government plans to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2025, and is using tax breaks and financial incentives to encourage the purchasing of more sustainable vehicles. Battery electric vehicles made up 54.3% of new car sales in 2020, up from 42% in 2019, according to figures published by the Norwegian Road Federation (OFV) on Tuesday.

Cars with diesel-only engines have fallen from a height of being 75.7 per cent of the Norweigen vehicle market in 2011 to just 8.6 per cent in 2020. "We're definitely on track to reach the 2025 target," said Oyvind Thorsen, the chief executive of OFV. The most popular model in the country was the Audi e-tron sports utility and sportsback vehicles, with the Tesla mid-size Model 3 taking second place.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Norway Becomes First Country To Sell More Electric Cars Than Petrol Vehicles

Comments Filter:
  • by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Thursday January 07, 2021 @02:16AM (#60905794)

    Car sales and taxation are massive parts of the budgets, most countries can't politically afford their level of subsidies (which is not to say they can't afford them, it's just impossible politically).

    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday January 07, 2021 @03:54AM (#60905976)

      As the production of EVs ramps up, the price will come down through the economies of mass production.

      We should appreciate the Norwegians for paying the price to pave the way for the rest of us.

      • by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Thursday January 07, 2021 @07:29AM (#60906282)

        As the production of EVs ramps up, the price will come down through the economies of mass production.

        We should appreciate the Norwegians for paying the price to pave the way for the rest of us.

        Norway buys about 140K cars/year, compared to say 23 million in China or even Turkey's 620K. Norway is no where near the top 20 in sales; so I doubt they will have much of an impact on economies of scale.

        • by MrNaz ( 730548 ) on Thursday January 07, 2021 @08:24AM (#60906368) Homepage

          They will have an impact on policymakers who need to be convinced it's doable.

        • by teg ( 97890 )

          As the production of EVs ramps up, the price will come down through the economies of mass production.

          We should appreciate the Norwegians for paying the price to pave the way for the rest of us.

          Norway buys about 140K cars/year, compared to say 23 million in China or even Turkey's 620K. Norway is no where near the top 20 in sales; so I doubt they will have much of an impact on economies of scale.

          Not anymore, but Norway was the one of the world's largest EV markets (#2, I think) for a long time. While not a big part of the total car market, it was an important market for the EV manufacturers so they had markets to sell to while making EVs better and better.

          • As the production of EVs ramps up, the price will come down through the economies of mass production.

            We should appreciate the Norwegians for paying the price to pave the way for the rest of us.

            Norway buys about 140K cars/year, compared to say 23 million in China or even Turkey's 620K. Norway is no where near the top 20 in sales; so I doubt they will have much of an impact on economies of scale.

            Not anymore, but Norway was the one of the world's largest EV markets (#2, I think) for a long time. While not a big part of the total car market, it was an important market for the EV manufacturers so they had markets to sell to while making EVs better and better.

            Worldwide EV sales were 2.17 million in 2019. Europe sold 590 million EV's. Norway was #3 in 2019, ahead of Germany but way behind China and the US. In Q4 2019 the US sold nearly as many EV's as Norway sold cars. While no doubt Norway provides useful information on EV operation, durability, etc.; economies of scale will not come from their sales. The most interesting thing is for economists to learn how tax breaks impact vehicle purchase and repair decisions, IMHO.

            • by teg ( 97890 )

              As the production of EVs ramps up, the price will come down through the economies of mass production.

              We should appreciate the Norwegians for paying the price to pave the way for the rest of us.

              Norway buys about 140K cars/year, compared to say 23 million in China or even Turkey's 620K. Norway is no where near the top 20 in sales; so I doubt they will have much of an impact on economies of scale.

              Not anymore, but Norway was the one of the world's largest EV markets (#2, I think) for a long time. While not a big part of the total car market, it was an important market for the EV manufacturers so they had markets to sell to while making EVs better and better.

              Worldwide EV sales were 2.17 million in 2019. Europe sold 590 million EV's. Norway was #3 in 2019, ahead of Germany but way behind China and the US. In Q4 2019 the US sold nearly as many EV's as Norway sold cars. While no doubt Norway provides useful information on EV operation, durability, etc.; economies of scale will not come from their sales. The most interesting thing is for economists to learn how tax breaks impact vehicle purchase and repair decisions, IMHO.

              I was thinking earlier, when total EV sales were far lower than they were today. As time passes, Norway is going to trend towards the midget in car sales it usually is with its small population. Being by far the largest EV market in Europe also means a lot for many different brands - the China market is for Chinese brands only, and sales for non-Tesla EVs in the US have been low AFAIK.

        • Lot more testing

          140 K cars a year is orders of magnitude smaller than sales in other countries,

          140K car users is orders of magnitude more than the number of QA, test engineers and usability testers

          We would know what works, what does not, which is more painful, what concern is overblown, and what issues were not know before etc...

      • Fools focusing on purchase price remind me of those clueless people who got a 'free" iPhone and spent years locked into expensive contracts.
        My Tesla saves me about$5000 a year on fuel and maintenance.
        Maths!

    • It's possible in Norway because refined fuel exports make them a lot of money. The less fuel burned domestically the more they can export. What also makes it politically possible is there's not a lot of long distance travel by car in a nation that small and mountainous.

      Most nations could not afford this, politically or economically. Norway can because the income from fuel exports more than make up for the loss of domestic fuel and car taxes.

      • by Ost99 ( 101831 ) on Thursday January 07, 2021 @05:34AM (#60906092)

        Small? The distance from the southern point to the northern point is about 2500 km by road. About the same as Athens to Hamburg. Or just a bit shorter than Houston to New York.

        • Yes small. I could drive 2500 km without leaving Texas or California. Just two states of the 50 of the country that I am in. Silly Euro newbs with their distorted sense of scale. ;)

          • by Ost99 ( 101831 )

            Unless you count Mexican Baja California too, driving the distance from the southern most part of California to the northern most part is less than 1500 KM.
            San Diego to Seattle is 2000 KM. The entire length of the west coast is "small". Sure.

            East to west Texas and North to South Texas are about about 1300KM. Your sense of scale is off.

      • by orzetto ( 545509 ) on Thursday January 07, 2021 @06:03AM (#60906126)

        [...] a nation that small and mountainous.

        As a Norwegian I am officially offended here... One of the greatest points of pride of Norway is that if you flip the nation around Oslo, North Cape would land in Rome. Roads are long and there are some with very minimal infrastructure, so if anything it is a lot more challenging than realising this in e.g. the Netherlands or New York.

        The origin of our battery vehicle policy is a protectionist hack around EU laws against direct state handouts. The government wanted to support local car production by company Think [wikipedia.org], that specialised in battery cars when no one was making them. They made a law that exempted battery cars from VAT and gave them a bunch of privileges, and when Mitsubishi, Nissan and Tesla showed up they could not simply roll them back as it suddenly had become an international sensation.

        Contributing factors are the very cheap electrical power, expensive gas (aligned to Europe), and low speed limits (it's rare to see above 80 km/h). As most Norwegians heat their homes and cook with electrical power, most homes have very high power requirements (my flat is 9 kW), which makes it easy to accommodate a charging car (2-3 kW).

        Most nations could not afford this, politically or economically.

        You want something for free? Follow this scheme (which we should have been using from the start, if we could predict the success EVs would have had):

        1. Set a nominal 100% level for car sales tax/VAT, parking fees, road tolls, etc.
        2. Set the actual initial tax/fee level to 100% for ICEs and 0% for EVs
        3. When the corresponding authority (tax office, car park owner, whatever) can document that x % of their business is with EVs, they can raise all vehicles' tax/fees with that percentage; e.g. with a 54% share of new cars, the tax office would make EVs pay 54% of the nominal VAT and ICEs 154%.

        This scheme has the advantages that:

        • It is zero-cost, since the sum of income from tax, fees and such is the same at any degree of EV penetration (do the math), so there is no requirement for a budget post
        • The difference between ICEs and EVs is always 100% of the nominal value, so consumers know they will always be saving the same money by switching to EVs; the date when EV support will be removed is a hotly debated topic in Norway, and experience from Denmark shows that removing them too early is damaging
        • It is self-policing, as the people setting the tax/fees have an interest to get more income by tracking the increasing share of EVs
        • It is gradual and does not bump subsidies in or out in one go
        • [...] a nation that small and mountainous.

          As a Norwegian I am officially offended here... One of the greatest points of pride of Norway is that if you flip the nation around Oslo, North Cape would land in Rome. Roads are long and there are some with very minimal infrastructure, so if anything it is a lot more challenging than realising this in e.g. the Netherlands or New York.

          What are Norwegian driving habits? How often do they take a long trip that requires recharging the battery en-route?

          Distance is not an issue when most trips are short and cars can be easily recharged at home; so there is never a problem with having to find a charging station and waiting for your vehicle to charge. Even the average American commute to work could easily be done in an EV.

          Long trips are still an EV's weak point; given the challenges and time required for recharging vs getting gas for an ICE p

          • >Long trips are still an EV's weak point; given the challenges and time required for recharging vs getting gas for an ICE powered car. Once EV's overcome the issues of charging time and availability of charging locations, EV growth will be greater; especially in areas where longer trips are much more prevalent.

            Bjorn Nyland routinely does 1000km (~620mi) road trips in EVs while reviewing them. Most trips, including charging stops, are ~12 hours or less.

            He also livestreams at least some of these test drive

          • [...] Long trips are still an EV's weak point; given the challenges and time required for recharging vs getting gas for an ICE powered car. Once EV's overcome the issues of charging time and availability of charging locations, EV growth will be greater; especially in areas where longer trips are much more prevalent.

            In my Model 3 Tesla, it's really not bad. I have the Performance version on 20" super sticky tires, so it's actually a little worse for me than the average Tesla Model 3 owner...

            Just before lockdown, it looked like I needed to go to Atlanta GA from Boston MA. I really hate flying, so I considered driving the Tesla, stopping overnight about halfway in Richmond VA.

            To get to Richmond is 9 hours, 5 minutes of driving, with 2 stops to charge, totaling 41 minutes.
            From Richmond to Atlanta is 9 hours 40 minutes of driving, with 3 stops totaling 52 minutes.
            (btw, these are numbers for today, in winter, which means they're very conservative, i.e. I calculated using a highter-than-summertime energy consumption. In summer it would take even less time to charge).

            So, traveling most of the way down the east coast of the United States, I spend 93 minutes charging. At my age, I need to stop every now and again to pee, so if you assume I spend 10 minutes at each stop finding a restroom and maybe grabbing a coke, I only spend about 43 minutes waiting around for the car to charge. From Boston to Atlanta!

            If you're one of those "drive straight through" people (I fall asleep if I try to do that) it's 18 hours, 13 minutes of driving, and 1 hour 44 minutes of charging. So, you could eat 3 of your meals indoors instead of eating in your car and arriving with the whole car smelling of rancid french fries ;-)

            The story is not quite as pretty for a non-Tesla owner. Although Electrify America has been putting in lots of DC fast chargers, that network is not as robust as the Tesla one, so there are fewer chargers to pick from, and they've had some maintenance issues. They'll continue their build out and fix the maintenance issues (which happened because nobody was making chargers that could deliver the desired charging rates at the time, and so there were new designs that had teething problems. There's no reason to think they won't solve that and be just as good as the Tesla network).

            There's literally no place I wouldn't just hop in my Tesla and start driving to. Yes, I'll spend a maybe 10% of the drive time charging, but for most people quite a bit of that will overlap with rest breaks, meals, etc.

            I'll politely disagree that long trips are the issue. I think the real issue is towing trailers. The aerodynamic drag of pulling a trailer really increases energy consumption in both EV and ICE. In the case of EV, this causes excessive charging time on a long trip. So, if you happen to pull a trailer a lot (I don't) then I'll agree that long trips are an issue. But if you don't often pull a trailer, I'd say long trips are a non-issue for Tesla owners, and soon to be a non-issue for most newer EVs...

            • I'll politely disagree that long trips are the issue. I think the real issue is towing trailers. The aerodynamic drag of pulling a trailer really increases energy consumption in both EV and ICE. In the case of EV, this causes excessive charging time on a long trip. So, if you happen to pull a trailer a lot (I don't) then I'll agree that long trips are an issue. But if you don't often pull a trailer, I'd say long trips are a non-issue for Tesla owners, and soon to be a non-issue for most newer EVs...

              Good points. I'd agree that the charging issue may be more of perception than reality, especially for Tesla owners, but nonetheless it persists.

              For me, it's not so much a range, since most EV's are good for 4-5 hours of driving and at that point a rest stop is probably needed anyway; but of convenience. With an EV, you can't simply pull off at an exit and easily find a charging station; thus the need to plan ahead more than in an ICE vehicle. That is especially true if you are not on a major highway. I

            • I'll politely disagree that long trips are the issue.

              I disagree. Even with the significant infrastructure for Tesla, as you say, you spend 10% of your trip time recharging but also you have to put significant time into planning for that because of the limitation on where you can charge. Same trip with a gas car and you can put almost no time into planning stops. With rare exceptions, fuel stops can be done pretty much anywhere along the way when the vehicles needs gas and if it doesn't line up with a natural break time, a fuel stop can be no more than 5-10

        • As most Norwegians heat their homes and cook with electrical power, most homes have very high power requirements (my flat is 9 kW), which makes it easy to accommodate a charging car (2-3 kW).

          The lowest level of service available for a home in the USA is 220V @ 100A, or 22kW; the only other option available to most residential customers is 200A. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but I know that 9kW is not very much. My apartment in Austin had at least three 110V @ 15A circuits, or 5kW, and that was with gas heat, but an electric [mini] dryer (and washer, stacked.) I think there were actually four circuits but since it was in one of the more expensive complexes in town they handled

          • by Ecuador ( 740021 ) on Thursday January 07, 2021 @09:18AM (#60906504) Homepage

            The lowest level of service available for a home in the USA is 220V @ 100A, or 22kW; the only other option available to most residential customers is 200A. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but I know that 9kW is not very much. My apartment in Austin had at least three 110V @ 15A circuits, or 5kW, and that was with gas heat, but an electric [mini] dryer (and washer, stacked.) I think there were actually four circuits but since it was in one of the more expensive complexes in town they handled everything for me, I never had to do so much as change a light bulb.

            I think the two most important factors in your EV adoption are the price of fuel and the massive taxes placed on only ICEVs. Both of which, BTW, make sense to me— but would immediately kick Americans' asses. Even if there were enough EVs available for us all to switch, not enough of us could afford to do so.

            When I lived in NY, ConEd home service could offer 120V @ 100A or 200A (don't remember which), which would make 12kVA or 24kVA, but the actual fuses were 15A which meant I could easily trip them. I don't know about the whole of Europe, but in Greece for example the minimum service is single phase 230V @ 35A (8kVA), but it is common to opt for tri-phase 230V that starts at 3x25A (17kVA). Since you need an RCD relay at the top and they are usually made up to 40A, I don't think you'd consider more than that anyway. Home fuses are generally 16A except for the ones for kitchen circuits and the ones for water heating which are at usually 25A. The fact that the US home with the low voltage did not have great Amp fuses was quite limiting, definitely not good to plug in a car. Any Greek home should allow you to plug at least in the kitchen for 5.75kVA, anywhere else for 3.7kVA. And I'd think that 3.7kVA (230V @ 16A circuit) should be the minimum that would be available across Europe (well for reasonably modern installations) which should be enough for a car as the GP suggested.

            • Many if not most American homes have a receptacle delivering 220V @ 15A in order to provide for an electric clothes dryer. But that's not most relevant, what really matters is what level of service comes to the panel, because you can add a receptacle for a reasonable cost if the panel is anywhere near your parking.

              • A standard US dryer outlet is 220V@30A, not 15A. 15A is generally 120V and intended for lighting and "convenience lighting". These days, most outlets are actually fed by a 20A breaker, not 15A.

                And yes, it's not that expensive, compared to the price of a car, to run an outlet from your panel to the garage, because there's like a 80% chance the panel is actually IN the garage.

                At which point you can put in a 240V@50A outlet if you want. They're generally used for heavy duty commercial grade welders.

            • 120V service would basically mean that you were living in the tiny area originally serviced by Edison. The switch to 240V services was really far back. A direct 120V service would thus be for something special, because you're in that specific bit.

          • by jbengt ( 874751 )

            The lowest level of service available for a home in the USA is 220V @ 100A, or 22kW; the only other option available to most residential customers is 200A.

            The first home I owned (in the USA) had a 60 A, 120V panel with 15A fuses. A number of older areas in cities don't offer 240V (or 220V as you said) but only 208V.

      • Norway is not a monolithic entity.

        Oil companies might not care, what they can't sell inside Norway they can sell outside.

        But gas station chains, car engine mechanics, these would care.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday January 07, 2021 @05:57AM (#60906116) Homepage Journal

      They don't subsidise any more, they just give tax breaks. I.e. fossil cars are punished to offset the damage they do.

      Norway has invested a lot in infrastructure. Much of it was done by private companies but the government has made sure that e.g. people can charge at home. I suppose you could call that a subsidy, but only if you also accept all the benefits that fossil cars have had over the years are also subsidies.

      • They don't subsidise any more, they just give tax breaks.

        You repeat yourself sir.

        But of course you would with your muddled and arrogant thinking. Go defend some women you idjit. Your idiocy is not needed here.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          There are important differences. Tax breaks reduce the cost to the buyer, they don't help the manufacturer beyond encouraging sales. In this case though it's probably a net benefit for the taxpayer due to reduced spending elsewhere, e.g. social medicine, cleaning public spaces and buildings, climate change.

    • And most of us can't afford EVs either.

      There's ever so slightly much more to it than that.

    • Sure they can. Just change the name of the subsidy and "energy subsidy" and write in the fine print to simply redirect funds from oil and coal. You don't even need to add anything to the budget to subsidize this orders of magnitude higher than it's already being subsidised in most of the world.

  • This leads to many problems, and government gives subsidiaries to EV buyers.
    When a car is in an accident, it quickly gets scrapped instead of repaired, as there is no tax reduction, subsidiaries on spare parts, and insurance rules are to scrap any car that costs more that x% to repair. So environmental impact of EV in Norway is way higher than in other countries.

    • ... now all you need is a source reference for your claim.
      • by teg ( 97890 ) on Thursday January 07, 2021 @02:51AM (#60905876)

        ... now all you need is a source reference for your claim.

        There was actually an article [www.nrk.no] - related to a TV program - on this subject this week.

        Though I would like to clarify that EVs aren't subsidised (with the exception of not having to pay VAT), but rather get a very healthy tax rate (0) in a car tax system based on emissions of the cars being sold.

        This differs from other countries where you have taxes covering EVs as well as other cars, but give some sort of subsidy - e.g. a certain amount per car.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          Gas cars don't get subsidies for repairs either.

          So if EVs are not repaired because of a lack of repair subsidies, why are gas cars repaired?

          How is the situation different?

          The fact that EVs were subsidized when originally purchased should be irrelevant.

          • by Talla ( 95956 )

            So if EVs are not repaired because of a lack of repair subsidies, why are gas cars repaired?

            Because the tax break for new EVs but not the parts makes it much cheaper to buy a new car than to buy the individual parts. There is no tax break for gas cars so the parts becomes proportionally cheaper compared to buying a new car.

          • by teg ( 97890 )

            Gas cars don't get subsidies for repairs either.

            So if EVs are not repaired because of a lack of repair subsidies, why are gas cars repaired?

            How is the situation different?

            The fact that EVs were subsidized when originally purchased should be irrelevant.

            Think of two cars that cost 1000 NOK from the manufacturer. Car A is an EV, and car B is an fossil car. The price to the customer will be 1000 NOK for car A, and let's say 1500 for car B (emission taxes plus VAT). The insurance companies will fix a car if the cost to repair is less than 60% of the cost of a car, so it will only repair 600 NOK damage to the EV but 900 NOK for car B.

            Note that the cost to repair them could be fairly similar, given that the taxes (VAT) are the same for both cars.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by Moloth ( 2793915 )

      I would think at a bare minimum the battery pack (if it was undamaged) would still be worth a good chunk of change.

    • This leads to many problems, and government gives subsidiaries to EV buyers. When a car is in an accident, it quickly gets scrapped instead of repaired, as there is no tax reduction, subsidiaries on spare parts, and insurance rules are to scrap any car that costs more that x% to repair. So environmental impact of EV in Norway is way higher than in other countries.

      Whatever environmental impact Norwegian EVs have is drowned out by the environmental damage done by Norway's fossil fuel exports.

      • by teg ( 97890 )

        This leads to many problems, and government gives subsidiaries to EV buyers. When a car is in an accident, it quickly gets scrapped instead of repaired, as there is no tax reduction, subsidiaries on spare parts, and insurance rules are to scrap any car that costs more that x% to repair. So environmental impact of EV in Norway is way higher than in other countries.

        Whatever environmental impact Norwegian EVs have is drowned out by the environmental damage done by Norway's fossil fuel exports.

        Where the oil comes from doesn't matter much when you burn it, so the net damage from Norway there - compared to getting the oil from Saudi-Arabia etc - is 0.

        • by quenda ( 644621 )

          Where the oil comes from doesn't matter much when you burn it, so the net damage from Norway there - compared to getting the oil from Saudi-Arabia etc - is 0.

          That is only true if we have an unlimited supply of cheap oil. In reality, Norway's exports have increased supply, lowered prices and increased consumption of oil.
          Not a criticism of them. Who would say no to trillions of crowns over the last 40 years? That's like $1million per family. Of course they can subsidise a few cars - they are richer than Oprah.

          • That is only true if we have an unlimited supply of cheap oil.

            Saudi Arabia has plenty of spare capacity and can pump for $2 per barrel.

            The only restraint on their production is maintaining prices.

            So if Norway produces more, the Saudis produce less. The total oil produced is the same.

            The moral responsibility lies with the consumer of oil, not the producer.

            • The moral responsibility lies with the consumer of oil, not the producer.

              If you hand a child a gun and they shoot someone, you're both responsible... but depending on their age, it may be more you than they.

      • Accountancy is the art of

        1. Counting the right things.
        2. Not double-counting them.

        It's OK to count carbon emission at the point of extraction, or the point of use. But if you do both, you double count them. Unless you want to elucidate about how to split the responsibility for the world's carbon pollution, you can't really say the extraction drowns out the EV use.

        (Another matter is that Norway's per capita carbon emissions are still fairly high, EVs or no EVs.)

        • by pacinpm ( 631330 ) <pacinpm@NoSPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday January 07, 2021 @03:23AM (#60905926)

          Accountancy is the art of

          1. Counting the right things.
          2. Not double-counting them.

          It's OK to count carbon emission at the point of extraction, or the point of use.

          I heard that oil extraction and gas production (from that oil) have large environmental impact, comparable to burning end product. So you can count the same fuel twice: it's production and it's burning.

          • by Ost99 ( 101831 ) on Thursday January 07, 2021 @05:39AM (#60906098)

            Norway has electrified the drilling platforms and have a significantly lower emissions per barrel produced compared to other offshore operations.

          • by teg ( 97890 )

            Accountancy is the art of

            1. Counting the right things. 2. Not double-counting them.

            It's OK to count carbon emission at the point of extraction, or the point of use.

            I heard that oil extraction and gas production (from that oil) have large environmental impact, comparable to burning end product. So you can count the same fuel twice: it's production and it's burning.

            The impact of producing it is in Norway is just a couple of percent of the total emissions. This is much, much higher for e.g. oil tar sands. In any case, the resposibility of the emissions for production belongs to Norway, the emissions by using the end product for whoever burns that.

    • This leads to many problems, and government gives subsidiaries to EV buyers.
      When a car is in an accident, it quickly gets scrapped instead of repaired, as there is no tax reduction, subsidiaries on spare parts, and insurance rules are to scrap any car that costs more that x% to repair.

      What do subsidies have to do with scaping a car or using parts? Your comment makes no sense.

      • It makes sense.
        Instead of repairing a broken combustion engine car, they might buy a new ev, which might be worse for the environment.

    • Governments give subsidies to ICE too which should have stopped decades ago. Are you saying only EVs have accidents in Norway?
    • The vast majority of vehicles which are in serious accidents are "totaled" and scrapped anyway. Automobiles are the most aggressively recycled consumer good on the planet. The battery packs from crashed EVs, if not deflagrated, are sold on to the secondary market where people use them for solar batteries in both fixed and mobile installations. The rest of the vehicle is broken up for parts which are used to keep other vehicles on the road. Today's vehicles are almost all unibody and made with a mixture of s

  • by sd4f ( 1891894 ) on Thursday January 07, 2021 @02:29AM (#60905822)

    While diesel cars have had a few advantages, I can see in Europe that the tide was turning, purely because diesel cars invariably stink, walk past a whole bunch of them taking off and it's difficult to breath, and more and more cities are prohibiting them to be driven on their streets.

    However, with all the additional systems to control emissions, they've gained a reputation of becoming rather expensive to maintain and repair. Quite a shame, because diesels were known to be more reliable, and go back far enough, the mechanically injected diesels of old don't need any electronics; the battery was only used for starting the engine and electronics not related to the engine, such as lights and radios.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Diesel was promoted in some European countries, particularly France, as being cleaner and better for health. That turned out to be completely wrong so there is a u-turn in progress.

      • by sd4f ( 1891894 )

        It's never that simple, but if you were to only look at CO2, then I think you can argue that diesels pollute less. The process is more efficient, so they extract more work from the fuel than a corresponding petrol engine.

        One way or another, I think we can start to see that the electric car is not going to fizzle out, I suspect that these countries like Norway are trying to give some political certainty to tell everyone that this is the way forward.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Yep, that's basically the mistake they made, only looked at CO2. Ignored all the other shit coming out of the exhaust.

          • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday January 07, 2021 @08:20AM (#60906352) Homepage Journal

            Diesels with SCR and DEF injection are cleaner than gassers, because DEF injection eliminates nearly 100% of diesel NOx, and because gassers put out just as much soot as diesels [slashdot.org]. Meanwhile, it takes less energy to make diesel. Well-to-wheel, diesel is cleaner than gasoline.

            Diesels without DPFs emit no more soot than gassers, but it's greasier, so it sticks to things more and you see it more. But because gasser soot is all PM2.5, it's much more dangerous than diesel soot. It sticks to your lungs, and persistent carbon irritants are known carcinogens.

            So no, they did not make a mistake. Diesels actually are cleaner than gassers, provided you have DEF injection to handle the NOx. They run lean all the time so they don't emit the unburned HC that gassers do at startup. They keep promising us heated catalysts to solve that problem for gassers, but then they don't deliver them.

            HCs are the single worst ICE emission no matter how you measure, and gassers emit more of them (and more volatile HCs) than diesels. The whole idea that gassers are cleaner than diesels is spectacularly ridiculous, because we have all the evidence in the world that the opposite is true. Yet people continually ignore it because they are prejudiced against diesel and want to confirm their prejudices.

        • It's never that simple, but if you were to only look at CO2, then I think you can argue that diesels pollute less.

          Unless you bought a VW which cheated on the emissions controls.

  • interesting (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Escogido ( 884359 )

    so what they are basically doing there is using moneys earned from what is essential for "traditional" cars to advance progress in the area that obsoletes this very source of income. which reminds me of Sun Microsystems.

    Sun: Let's make software that only runs on our hardware, but it is so fantastic everyone wants to buy our hardware!
    Also Sun: Let's also make Java so that they don't actually have to buy our hardware.

    we sort of know how it turned out for Sun and Java. hmm...

  • Fnords on the Fjords look like Fords.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A guinea pig is not from Guinea but a rodent from South America.

Working...