It is almost beyond belief.
And very, very cool.
It is happening!
https://e24.no/bil/elbil/lan-marie-berg ... d/24590844

If you have so much renewable energy it makes sense, but who has it?

Because of engine efficiency, it makes sense even if you are burning coal.
Energy production is also moving towards clean production very fast. China is still building coal power, but the price is expected to change to the advantage of renewals very, very soon, and they will then start cleaning up fast.

We are way beyond discussing if EVs are a smart move or not, they are.

seahawk wrote:

If you have so much renewable energy it makes sense, but who has it?

Cool. And 1 in 3 are Tesla's

Yes, the specific reason for the high number in march is the Tesla 3 being introduced to the market.
1/1000 norwegians bought a Tesla 3 last month.
I am guessing that number won’t be beaten anytime soon. In the US that would have equaled 325 000 3s. And these aren’t even the affordable models yet. Norwegians really want Mid level safe station wagons with smallish engines, and that is the one thing no one makes in electric cars.
When that comes, the market will be 90% electric every month. ICs will be dead.

Dutchy wrote:

Cool. And 1 in 3 are Tesla's ;-)

seahawk wrote:

If you have so much renewable energy it makes sense, but who has it?

You see, the oil producing countries now have less and less leverage over Norway.

stl07 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

If you have so much renewable energy it makes sense, but who has it?

You see, the oil producing countries now have less and less leverage over Norway.

Which is an oil producing country.

seahawk wrote:

stl07 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

If you have so much renewable energy it makes sense, but who has it?

You see, the oil producing countries now have less and less leverage over Norway.

Which is an oil producing country.

Yes, if they lower their oil need, they can be self sufficient with their own oil or be profitable and export it

seahawk wrote:

stl07 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

If you have so much renewable energy it makes sense, but who has it?

You see, the oil producing countries now have less and less leverage over Norway.

Which is an oil producing country.

M564038 wrote:

Because of engine efficiency, it makes sense even if you are burning coal.
Energy production is also moving towards clean production very fast. China is still building coal power, but the price is expected to change to the advantage of renewals very, very soon, and they will then start cleaning up fast.

We are way beyond discussing if EVs are a smart move or not, they are.

seahawk wrote:

If you have so much renewable energy it makes sense, but who has it?

That might be your opinion, but not generally accepted consensus. Norway has lots of advantages compared to other country. The renewable energy is largely hydro-electric which is reliable, consistent and quick to react to different loads in the grid. It also has a good capacity to store energy, through the water levels in the dam. IN addition the distance from production to consumption is small.

Other renewable do not have that. Sun or wind are not consistent, you can not match the output to the demand and storing the energy is not possible in the pure form.

And considering the losses in a conventional plant, in the grid, in the batteries and finally in the motor - electric cars are not more efficient than combustion engines when using fossil fuel. If electric cars are the answer is still open, battery powered cars won´t be for most countries. Because once you need to start storing renewable energy in an efficient lasting and quick to use form, you are looking at fuel made from CO2. And once you produce those, the combustion engine or the fuel cell becomes green and still enjoys the advantage of needing less valuable raw materials than batteries and being much easier to recycle, while offering more range and and existing infrastructure to refill the energy of the cars.

I am happy that the child labor in congo is kept busy mining rare earths.

DGVT wrote:

I am happy that the child labor in congo is kept busy mining rare earths.

2010 called. They want their misconceptions back.
You are comedy gold!

seahawk wrote:

seahawk wrote:

stl07 wrote:

You see, the oil producing countries now have less and less leverage over Norway.

Which is an oil producing country.

M564038 wrote:

Because of engine efficiency, it makes sense even if you are burning coal.
Energy production is also moving towards clean production very fast. China is still building coal power, but the price is expected to change to the advantage of renewals very, very soon, and they will then start cleaning up fast.

We are way beyond discussing if EVs are a smart move or not, they are.

seahawk wrote:

If you have so much renewable energy it makes sense, but who has it?

That might be your opinion, but not generally accepted consensus. Norway has lots of advantages compared to other country. The renewable energy is largely hydro-electric which is reliable, consistent and quick to react to different loads in the grid. It also has a good capacity to store energy, through the water levels in the dam. IN addition the distance from production to consumption is small.

Other renewable do not have that. Sun or wind are not consistent, you can not match the output to the demand and storing the energy is not possible in the pure form.

And considering the losses in a conventional plant, in the grid, in the batteries and finally in the motor - electric cars are not more efficient than combustion engines when using fossil fuel. If electric cars are the answer is still open, battery powered cars won´t be for most countries. Because once you need to start storing renewable energy in an efficient lasting and quick to use form, you are looking at fuel made from CO2. And once you produce those, the combustion engine or the fuel cell becomes green and still enjoys the advantage of needing less valuable raw materials than batteries and being much easier to recycle, while offering more range and and existing infrastructure to refill the energy of the cars.

Yes. Congo has problems. They need to be solved.
They are a big suppliet of rare earths to the electronics industry as well as both dinasaur cars and Evs.

DGVT wrote:

I am happy that the child labor in congo is kept busy mining rare earths.

Oil exports are still way too big unfortunately, and I amongst those that think the Oil fund, now the size of about $300,000 per norwegian citizen, should be put towards research in renewable energy.

(Norwegian off-shore oil is at least cleaner than tar dand and chinese coal converting projects. )

stl07 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

stl07 wrote:

You see, the oil producing countries now have less and less leverage over Norway.

Which is an oil producing country.

Yes, if they lower their oil need, they can be self sufficient with their own oil or be profitable and export it

The tax laws in Norway and some other countries make it so that a full EV is cheaper that almost all hybrid and IC vehicles. Throw in the prices of petrol (like 2 Euro /L) and low electricity costs, it is no wonder full EV's are selling so well in certain communities in Norway. Do they have the Supercharger and other access to charge your EV up, especially with the huge increase in numbers. Does one face tripping over extension cords from people's houses and what if someone lives in an apartment ?

M564038 wrote:

2010 called. They want their misconceptions back.
You are comedy gold!

Thank for the compliment!!

stl07 wrote:

You see, the oil producing countries now have less and less leverage over Norway.

jeez. Norway hasn't needed to import oil for decades - oil export money is exactly why they can incentivize electric vehicles - which is the primary driver of electric car acceptance.

seahawk wrote:

And considering the losses in a conventional plant, in the grid, in the batteries and finally in the motor - electric cars are not more efficient than combustion engines when using fossil fuel. If electric cars are the answer is still open, battery powered cars won´t be for most countries.

Talk about a load. I'm not going to bother searching for the studies refuting that for the umpteenth time (all of which are conservatively inaccurate because they do not include the costs of oil security), but a little sensible thought disproves that oil industry propaganda. An ICE currently has ~20% PEAK efficiency. It will operate at PEAK efficiency some of the time, under certain conditions. A "fossil fueled" power plant is 35%(old decrepit coal plants) - 65% (new modern NG plants) at PEAK. Power plants operate at PEAK efficiency most of the time. They don't idle at every stop light and automatically lose 80% energy in heat for example.

Volkswagen was said to be pushing 30some% with their TDi, and was said to be about as efficient overall as an old coal plant when running at PEAK, but that turned out to be a lie. Some electrics are certainly more efficient than others, Tesla and the Koreans rule there. Electric lines, inverter and motors losses are generally ~10%. Another indication is the price to fuel each. Discounting the wild energy prices of California and Germany for example, an electric is 50-75% LESS to fuel than an ICE in most places in my country. There are reasons for this beyond geopolitical, it is simply more efficient to control one power plant at PEAK than tens of thousands of individual ICEs.

On the flip side now, in California and other high energy cost regions, it has become cheaper to operate a comparative ICE than an electric. This is a huge pet peeve of mine as the state is stealing what should be a big benefit to consumers - while they push us to electrics. This is a political issue that all other states and countries need to be wary of. Don't let it happen to you.

Good for them. Doesn't work for my lifestyle even if I could afford that utopian life.

M564038 wrote:

It is almost beyond belief.
And very, very cool.
It is happening!
https://e24.no/bil/elbil/lan-marie-berg ... d/24590844

It’s only happening through govt intervention in the market, making it less expensive to own a BEV and more expensive to drive a conventional vehicle. It will be interesting to see which way consumers will jump when the incentives are removed.

stl07 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

stl07 wrote:

You see, the oil producing countries now have less and less leverage over Norway.

Which is an oil producing country.

Yes, if they lower their oil need, they can be self sufficient with their own oil or be profitable and export it

Norway produces far more oil than it needs for domestic consumption. It’s by far and away the largest producer in Europe.

mham001 wrote:

stl07 wrote:

You see, the oil producing countries now have less and less leverage over Norway.

jeez. Norway hasn't needed to import oil for decades - oil export money is exactly why they can incentivize electric vehicles - which is the primary driver of electric car acceptance.

seahawk wrote:

And considering the losses in a conventional plant, in the grid, in the batteries and finally in the motor - electric cars are not more efficient than combustion engines when using fossil fuel. If electric cars are the answer is still open, battery powered cars won´t be for most countries.

Talk about a load. I'm not going to bother searching for the studies refuting that for the umpteenth time (all of which are conservatively inaccurate because they do not include the costs of oil security), but a little sensible thought disproves that oil industry propaganda. An ICE currently has ~20% PEAK efficiency. It will operate at PEAK efficiency some of the time, under certain conditions. A "fossil fueled" power plant is 35%(old decrepit coal plants) - 65% (new modern NG plants) at PEAK. Power plants operate at PEAK efficiency most of the time. They don't idle at every stop light and automatically lose 80% energy in heat for example.

Volkswagen was said to be pushing 30some% with their TDi, and was said to be about as efficient overall as an old coal plant when running at PEAK, but that turned out to be a lie. Some electrics are certainly more efficient than others, Tesla and the Koreans rule there. Electric lines, inverter and motors losses are generally ~10%. Another indication is the price to fuel each. Discounting the wild energy prices of California and Germany for example, an electric is 50-75% LESS to fuel than an ICE in most places in my country. There are reasons for this beyond geopolitical, it is simply more efficient to control one power plant at PEAK than tens of thousands of individual ICEs.

On the flip side now, in California and other high energy cost regions, it has become cheaper to operate a comparative ICE than an electric. This is a huge pet peeve of mine as the state is stealing what should be a big benefit to consumers - while they push us to electrics. This is a political issue that all other states and countries need to be wary of. Don't let it happen to you.

That is a conventional car, which is obsolete any way. I am talking about fuel cells or electric cars with a combustion engine used as a range extender always running at optimum efficiency. They come very close in efficiency over the lifetime, as they need smaller batteries. In addition both can be refuelled quickly using existing infrastructure and they have a serious weight advantage, as a battery for 30km electric drive + a fuel cell or small combustion engine is a lot lighter than a battery needed for 400-500km range. And if you start making the fuel from renewable energy (which will be the future as batteries do literally not fly for planes for example) the combustion engine wins, as the engine needs less energy for production and as it is made of metal it is easy to recycle. A dead battery not so much.

ltbewr wrote:

The tax laws in Norway and some other countries make it so that a full EV is cheaper that almost all hybrid and IC vehicles. Throw in the prices of petrol (like 2 Euro /L) and low electricity costs, it is no wonder full EV's are selling so well in certain communities in Norway. Do they have the Supercharger and other access to charge your EV up, especially with the huge increase in numbers. Does one face tripping over extension cords from people's houses and what if someone lives in an apartment ?

I did my sums last year, I three kids and a large dog, we live semi rural and use both cars a lot. To fitnus all in a Tesla it had to be a Model S or X, both of which cost over 800,000 NOK for the longer range versions and that’s before you start adding any options. I ended up buying another Audi A6 Avant, I got a blinding good deal and paid 625,000 for the car, that leaves me with over 200,000 NOK to spend on fuel, insurance and maintenance over the 5 years that I will keep it. By my calculations I still come out ahead and don’t have any of the issues associated with BEVs like being unable to tow a trailer, range issues and long queues at superchargers over peak periods.

I have friends who have spend 3-4 hours waiting for a charge in some of the busy locations like Lilliehamer, Dombås and either side of Trondheim.

M564038 wrote:

2010 called. They want their misconceptions back.
You are comedy gold!

Please feel free proving Seahawk wrong with useful data. If unable, please refrain from condescending remarks.

what sort of fuel taxes does Norway have on gas/diesel? How will the revenue lost by people using more electric vehicles be offset? That's an item of concern here in parts of the USA for the future anyway - the current number of EV's here is minute compared to the total number of vehicles on the road. There are some proposals that would charge a mileage tax on all vehicles rather than a fuel tax. Cars would be equipped with GPS units or something similar that would keep track of miles (or kilometers) driven and the user would be taxed accordingly. I'd have no problem with that as infrastructure still needs to be maintained and if less money is brought in via fuel taxes, it has to come from somewhere

Fuel tax is very high and has been very high since the 80’s. However the norwegian state does not lack funding, it has a very high income, so it is not a big problem at present.
It is a bit of a political hot issue how to deal with this in the future, though.

ER757 wrote:

what sort of fuel taxes does Norway have on gas/diesel? How will the revenue lost by people using more electric vehicles be offset? That's an item of concern here in parts of the USA for the future anyway - the current number of EV's here is minute compared to the total number of vehicles on the road. There are some proposals that would charge a mileage tax on all vehicles rather than a fuel tax. Cars would be equipped with GPS units or something similar that would keep track of miles (or kilometers) driven and the user would be taxed accordingly. I'd have no problem with that as infrastructure still needs to be maintained and if less money is brought in via fuel taxes, it has to come from somewhere

No, Wildcat,
He just throws out a lot of useless garbage consisting of pure mythologi. I am not his mother, I am not going to do his homework for him.
If he aren’t to old, he will be driving an EV in 5 years like the people over here that offered exactly the same nonsense as him over here a few years back.

There are some hold outs, though, like Kiwirob, that claims to know better than the EV-owners themselves(like me) how it works for them.

For me, and most who go electric, I will never drive a dinosaur car again. EVs are simply BETTER.

WildcatYXU wrote:

M564038 wrote:

2010 called. They want their misconceptions back.
You are comedy gold!

Please feel free proving Seahawk wrong with useful data. If unable, please refrain from condescending remarks.

M564038 wrote:

There are some hold outs, though, like Kiwirob, that claims to know better than the EV-owners themselves(like me) how it works for them.

For me, and most who go electric, I will never drive a dinosaur car again. EVs are simply BETTER.

Not exactly a holdout just waiting for BEVs to offer what I currently have in my A6, I don’t want an inferior vehicle.

When the Icelandic volcano popped a few years back I had a massive deal which I had to have a meeting in Milano, and another meeting in Klaipeda, so I got in my car (1.6 Mini Clubman Cooper D) and drove, I could’t have done it in any electric car on sale today. On my way home I drove Milano to Molde, left on Friday and arrived home Sunday, that was just over 2000km, I’d hate to think how long that would take in an electric car. BEVs are great for city driving but are absolutely useless if you want to drive long distance in a timely fashion.

Roll on hydrogen I believe that is the real future for personal transport, BEVs are a side road we have mistakenly gone down.

Yes. For those kind of outback alaska/Zombie-apocalypse type scenarios, dino-cars is the right choice as of today.

According to abetterrouteplanner.com (which have proven itself accurate to me.) your Milano-Molde trip, would require:

Tesla 3: 4 hours and 27 minutes of charge time underway.
Hyundai Ioniq EV: 6 hours and 27 minutes of charge time.

Those numbers aren’t show-stopers.

Kiwirob wrote:

M564038 wrote:

There are some hold outs, though, like Kiwirob, that claims to know better than the EV-owners themselves(like me) how it works for them.

For me, and most who go electric, I will never drive a dinosaur car again. EVs are simply BETTER.

Not exactly a holdout just waiting for BEVs to offer what I currently have in my A6, I don’t want an inferior vehicle.

When the Icelandic volcano popped a few years back I had a massive deal which I had to have a meeting in Milano, and another meeting in Klaipeda, so I got in my car (1.6 Mini Clubman Cooper D) and drove, I could’t have done it in any electric car on sale today. On my way home I drove Milano to Molde, left on Friday and arrived home Sunday, that was just over 2000km, I’d hate to think how long that would take in an electric car. BEVs are great for city driving but are absolutely useless if you want to drive long distance in a timely fashion.

Roll on hydrogen I believe that is the real future for personal transport, BEVs are a side road we have mistakenly gone down.

Non electric cars are heavily taxed in Norway. A gas car with the weight and power of a Tesla would cost something like 200 000$ in taxes alone in Norway !

seahawk wrote:

Norway has lots of advantages compared to other country. The renewable energy is largely hydro-electric which is reliable, consistent and quick to react to different loads in the grid. It also has a good capacity to store energy, through the water levels in the dam. IN addition the distance from production to consumption is small.

Yup, and at certain times of the year the Norwegians have so much water that they export plenty of good, clean hydro power to here - Denmark.

Not so much at this time of the year as snow in the Norwegian mountains hasn't really begun melting yet, and the lakes are running low. Then it is payback time, and we Danes fire up our coal plants like crazy to power Norway.

So reality is that these days much of the Norwegian EVs run on coal power which has suffered considerable loss over hundreds of miles of mostly underwater lines. That's an inconvenient fact which doesn't fit very well into the government CO2 excel sheets, neither in Denmark nor in Norway, so we are not supposed to talk about it.

seahawk wrote:

That is a conventional car, which is obsolete any way. I am talking about fuel cells or electric cars with a combustion engine used as a range extender always running at optimum efficiency. They come very close in efficiency over the lifetime, as they need smaller batteries. In addition both can be refuelled quickly using existing infrastructure and they have a serious weight advantage, as a battery for 30km electric drive + a fuel cell or small combustion engine is a lot lighter than a battery needed for 400-500km range. And if you start making the fuel from renewable energy (which will be the future as batteries do literally not fly for planes for example) the combustion engine wins, as the engine needs less energy for production and as it is made of metal it is easy to recycle. A dead battery not so much.

That's not what you were talking about in the first post but whatever. I'm not buying any range extender but hydrogen I wouldn't care, as the electric's driving experience is superior if not for two things - hydrogen currently requires more energy to produce and we would then be beholden to another fuel monopoly cartel. Nor is the required infrastructure insignificant. I complain vociferously about my convicted-felon electric company but I have the choice to dump them and make my own electricity (as of today, I own over 20KW of solar panels). I don't have that choice with hydrogen, unless they come up with a home sized electrolysis machine sometime soon.

The recycle argument is a canard, they can already recycle most of them and there is a thriving used battery market, turns out, a used up car battery makes a fine home storage battery. I have an off-grid rental house running comfortably on Panasonic 18650 packs meant for hover boards.

Houses are not a mobile application. But even storage batteries for houses are not simple, when you look at the risks of a runaway battery and the resulting fire hazard. And as the batteries grow older the risk of failure grows. Fire in general is a topic for everything battery related. A burning Tesla is quite a different challenge to a burning normal car. The fumes are much more toxic and you need to cool it down for hours after extinguishing the fire so that the fire does not reignite again. A conventional car does not have these problems.

And once you produce hydrogen from renewable energy it makes sense to add CO2 to make a more easy to handle gas or fuel. Imho that will be the future, as it solves most problems of renewable energy, like storage, energy density and distribution. The technology is just moving into large scale commercial use and imho will win.

And regaining the lithium from batteries is still in the experimental stage of development, with also quite some energy needed.

Hahaha! Yes, this argument was also huge in 2013!
And then it turned out to not be a problem, so the guys fearing everything would burn are also driving EVs now.
That’s the real funny part. Everything you say is so easily refutable, because we are alteady at a point where we can say: «No, thats not the way it turned out.»

seahawk wrote:

Houses are not a mobile application. But even storage batteries for houses are not simple, when you look at the risks of a runaway battery and the resulting fire hazard. And as the batteries grow older the risk of failure grows. Fire in general is a topic for everything battery related. A burning Tesla is quite a different challenge to a burning normal car. The fumes are much more toxic and you need to cool it down for hours after extinguishing the fire so that the fire does not reignite again. A conventional car does not have these problems.

And once you produce hydrogen from renewable energy it makes sense to add CO2 to make a more easy to handle gas or fuel. Imho that will be the future, as it solves most problems of renewable energy, like storage, energy density and distribution. The technology is just moving into large scale commercial use and imho will win.

And regaining the lithium from batteries is still in the experimental stage of development, with also quite some energy needed.

Tesla disagrees with you: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/fil ... eet_en.pdf

To put the numbers in perspective.

Tesla mentions about 3000 US gallons of water extinguish a Type 3 - a normal car needs about 250-300.

Kiwirob wrote:

When the Icelandic volcano popped a few years back I had a massive deal which I had to have a meeting in Milano, and another meeting in Klaipeda, so I got in my car (1.6 Mini Clubman Cooper D) and drove, I could’t have done it in any electric car on sale today. On my way home I drove Milano to Molde, left on Friday and arrived home Sunday, that was just over 2000km, I’d hate to think how long that would take in an electric car. BEVs are great for city driving but are absolutely useless if you want to drive long distance in a timely fashion.

https://www.tesla.com/trips#/?v=MS_2017 ... 1999999986

I don't think it would be much of a problem today. Granted, would take longer than a petrol/diesel car.

BTW, how was such a long trip in a Mini? I used to own a Mini Cooper S and after a Toronto - Montreal trip, I thought my back was going to give out. I'm a fit person, so I can't imagine what it would've been like for the average Joe.

Loved the car, but it sucked for anything over 2h trips.

Anyway that number is misleading as it is mainly the cars preordered past 3 years that started to be delivered. If that that number stays like that next year, yes we may have a paradigm shift.

Again you forget that some of us live in the middle of it! I live in a 500 apartment complex. There are 200 (wooden) garages, there are another 400 outdoor parking spots. The EV share is substansial.
We are not going up in flames, and our power supply doesn’t break down. We beefed the electrical system to the garages up a bit. Most people install 32A/220V charging stations for their cars. (Which for my car gives about 50miles an hour charge speed. Perfect for overnight or mid day charge)

seahawk wrote:

Tesla disagrees with you: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/fil ... eet_en.pdf

To put the numbers in perspective.

Tesla mentions about 3000 US gallons of water extinguish a Type 3 - a normal car needs about 250-300.

Yes, as I said it included the introduction of the Tesla 3. However, even before it came on the market and with E-niro e-kona, audi e-tron not able to deliver in any numbers, VW still only having the e-golf, bmw still only having the i3, neither Toyota, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan, Mazda having anything in the market at present, numbers for the country as a whole was well above 60% for february.

There are sooo many new models right around the corner. The revolution has already happened in this market. The Dinosaur is dead.

Olddog wrote:

Anyway that number is misleading as it is mainly the cars preordered past 3 years that started to be delivered. If that that number stays like that next year, yes we may have a paradigm shift.

M564038 wrote:

Again you forget that some of us live in the middle of it! I live in a 500 apartment complex. There are 200 (wooden) garages, there are another 400 outdoor parking spots. The EV share is substansial.
We are not going up in flames, and our power supply doesn’t break down. We beefed the electrical system to the garages up a bit. Most people install 32A/220V charging stations for their cars. (Which for my car gives about 50miles an hour charge speed. Perfect for overnight or mid day charge)

seahawk wrote:

Tesla disagrees with you: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/fil ... eet_en.pdf

To put the numbers in perspective.

Tesla mentions about 3000 US gallons of water extinguish a Type 3 - a normal car needs about 250-300.

So I guess you live in Norway, where the average electricity consumption is 3 times higher than the EU average, as electricity has been used for heating in the past. That however does to reflect the state of the electrical grid in other countries, where for example heating is based on a gas supply net or district heating.

And outdoor garages and parking spots are a different topic than sub-terrain parking garages or multi-storey car parks. We all have to move to green energy, but every country has to find their own way to get their. What works for one country can easily not work for another.

Just compare the transit traffic between Norway and one of the central western European countries. Moving one of the central fuel stations on the main transit routes from fuel to electric with quick chargers needs a supply that could feed a smaller city.

prebennorholm wrote:

Not so much at this time of the year as snow in the Norwegian mountains hasn't really begun melting yet, and the lakes are running low. Then it is payback time, and we Danes fire up our coal plants like crazy to power Norway.

If you hadn't been so upset about Barsebäck you could've had CO2-free electricity instead…

Yes. The anti-nuclear movement has to bear their share of responsibility for a lot of CO2-emissions.

To clarify re: prebens idiotic statement.
Norway is a net exporter of electrical power and the production is 99% renewals.

Bostrom wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

Not so much at this time of the year as snow in the Norwegian mountains hasn't really begun melting yet, and the lakes are running low. Then it is payback time, and we Danes fire up our coal plants like crazy to power Norway.

If you hadn't been so upset about Barsebäck you could've had CO2-free electricity instead…

M564038 wrote:

For me, and most who go electric, I will never drive a dinosaur car again. EVs are simply BETTER.

That depends entirely on your usage profile. I drive both, and while the EV is absolutely brilliant for all short trips below 100km, e.g. to the city, shopping etc., it's absolutely useless for fast long range travel. Driving 500km in three hours and back on the same day simply isn't possbile with an EV today. My dinosaur does that effortlessly whilst seating 4 persons comfortably.
Even the high end teslas fail miserably, at speeds over 150km/h the battery drains like mad and even overheats eventually, forcing you to drive at truck speed to let it cool down. I've tried with a model S P100d and was severely disappointed. Basically the same trip would take 5 hours plus, not factoring in charging, and the ride is much less comfortable too. Not an option at all yet...

Hahaha!
We used to say things like that as well!
Driving 500Km in 3 hours at 150km/h speeds is not an average user profile.
It is just not a problem.
I drive 500Km all the time with my family in my Ioniq.
It is not a problem. At all. I use 50 minutes for charging on such a trip. 40 of them would have been a break anyway.


Take a look at my reply to the guy saying an EV could never have done Milan-Molde.
The charging time for that 28 hour trip is 4,5 hours for a Tesla 3, 6,5 hours for a Hyundai Ioniq.
Milan-Molde.

You guys are painting yourself into such a small corner..
«Evs will never happen cause I need to drive 6000 miles in 3 hours in the Australian outback where there is no chargers, sometimes I need to stop by the south pole» in which case, have fun with your Diesel!
Meanwhile in the real world, Norway is one of the harshest realistic conditions cars meet.
Bad roads, long distances, mountains, winds, bitter winter cold and ice in the inland, harsh coastal conditions. And EVs are aceing it! If they work here, they work anywhere where people actually live.

Zeppi wrote:

M564038 wrote:

For me, and most who go electric, I will never drive a dinosaur car again. EVs are simply BETTER.

That depends entirely on your usage profile. I drive both, and while the EV is absolutely brilliant for all short trips below 100km, e.g. to the city, shopping etc., it's absolutely useless for fast long range travel. Driving 500km in three hours and back on the same day simply isn't possbile with an EV today. My dinosaur does that effortlessly whilst seating 4 persons comfortably.
Even the high end teslas fail miserably, at speeds over 150km/h the battery drains like mad and even overheats eventually, forcing you to drive at truck speed to let it cool down. I've tried with a model S P100d and was severely disappointed. Basically the same trip would take 5 hours plus, not factoring in charging, and the ride is much less comfortable too. Not an option at all yet...

M564038 wrote:

Meanwhile in the real world, Norway is one of the harshest realistic conditions cars meet.
Bad roads, long distances, mountains, winds, bitter winter cold and ice in the inland, harsh coastal conditions. And EVs are aceing it! If they work here, they work anywhere where people actually live.

In the real world, most of Norway's population lives in the south which is heated by the Gulf stream. That area most likely knows nothing about what harsh conditions are. Try some Canadian cities on the same latitude - you'll learn the meaning of harsh conditions .
Oslo - after all you started bragging about Oslo - has higher winter minimum temperatures and much lower summer maximum temperatures compared to, let's say Montreal. That means less energy spent on your car's heating in winter and you can likely get away driving with your air conditioning off in summer. Much less in Montreal at +30C with 85% relative humidity. Again, more energy for your driving.
Also, Norway is a fairly large country (OK, for and European country, as it is only a third of Ontario by area) with a minuscule population. On the top of it, Norway has good conditions to generate hydroelectric power. So much of it, so after covering a the needs of 5.5 million people it can export whole 15% of generated power (while importing 5% of yearly consumption in times when needed). In a global picture it is nothing. Zero, zilch, nada. Not to mention that covering large areas with dams has environmental impact too. People just don't like to talk about it. Bragging about clean hydro energy feels much better.
Last but not least, there is a massive tax on cars with ICE in Norway. I'd love to see how much of new cars would be BEVs if the conditions would be equal.
So basically there is nothing special about popularity of electric vehicles in Norway. The reverse subsidy combined with good conditions for deployment makes southern Norway a prime area for BEV use. However, that's an exception, not the norm. Definitely nothing to brag about.

Hahaha! Nice try Wildcat.
But you are right! There is nothing special and nothing to brag about! And that is why I am not.

Norwegian conditions covers pretty much anything, (-30C is pretty common in sentral southern parts, and your +30 is nothing special either. -40 and +40 would be out of range) And covers the normal challenging ranges EVs will meet in the most populated areas of the planet extremely well.
The point is, since it works here, and it does, better than anyone anticipated, it will work anywhere once the primary driver of high price, the battery packs has come down in price. Which they are. Thus, we will see the same as here across the board in the coming years.

Remember. We are talking close to 80% in the last month. In wintery Oslo. Gas prices aside, this means it works.

This is not bragging, it just means that EVs work. And that none of the doom and gloom has any merit.

WildcatYXU wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Meanwhile in the real world, Norway is one of the harshest realistic conditions cars meet.
Bad roads, long distances, mountains, winds, bitter winter cold and ice in the inland, harsh coastal conditions. And EVs are aceing it! If they work here, they work anywhere where people actually live.

In the real world, most of Norway's population lives in the south which is heated by the Gulf stream. That area most likely knows nothing about what harsh conditions are. Try some Canadian cities on the same latitude - you'll learn the meaning of harsh conditions .
Oslo - after all you started bragging about Oslo - has higher winter minimum temperatures and much lower summer maximum temperatures compared to, let's say Montreal. That means less energy spent on your car's heating in winter and you can likely get away driving with your air conditioning off in summer. Much less in Montreal at +30C with 85% relative humidity. Again, more energy for your driving.
Also, Norway is a fairly large country (OK, for and European country, as it is only a third of Ontario by area) with a minuscule population. On the top of it, Norway has good conditions to generate hydroelectric power. So much of it, so after covering a the needs of 5.5 million people it can export whole 15% of generated power (while importing 5% of yearly consumption in times when needed). In a global picture it is nothing. Zero, zilch, nada. Not to mention that covering large areas with dams has environmental impact too. People just don't like to talk about it. Bragging about clean hydro energy feels much better.
Last but not least, there is a massive tax on cars with ICE in Norway. I'd love to see how much of new cars would be BEVs if the conditions would be equal.
So basically there is nothing special about popularity of electric vehicles in Norway. The reverse subsidy combined with good conditions for deployment makes southern Norway a prime area for BEV use. However, that's an exception, not the norm. Definitely nothing to brag about.

If EVs were as good (and as cheap) as you say then why does the government have to exempt them from taxes? The fact that the government is doing this, shows that they are not competitive when compared to ICEs.

Now I'm not against EVs at all, but simply stating that they are good for every need and can be just simply used on a mass scale around the world is naive.

As a side note. Here is what happend in Hong Kong to Tesla sales once tax breaks were cut:

The cars are not the problem the infrastructure is. For the whole renewable energy question the car is the smallest problem, because at worst it is a mild inconvenience that can be regulated by lower taxes and costs.

M564038 wrote:

Yes. For those kind of outback alaska/Zombie-apocalypse type scenarios, dino-cars is the right choice as of today.

According to abetterrouteplanner.com (which have proven itself accurate to me.) your Milano-Molde trip, would require:

Tesla 3: 4 hours and 27 minutes of charge time underway.
Hyundai Ioniq EV: 6 hours and 27 minutes of charge time.

Those numbers aren’t show-stopers

4 hours 27 minutes only if you find an empty supercharger and don’t have to wait and that’s also not going to happen it you take your Tesla over 130kph where it’s battery discharges quicker than a Norwegian necking free beer.

M564038 wrote:

Hahaha! Nice try Wildcat.
But you are right! There is nothing special and nothing to brag about! And that is why I am not.

Norwegian conditions covers pretty much anything, (-30C is pretty common in sentral southern parts, and your +30 is nothing special either. -40 and +40 would be out of range) And covers the normal challenging ranges EVs will meet in the most populated areas of the planet extremely well.
The point is, since it works here, and it does, better than anyone anticipated, it will work anywhere once the primary driver of high price, the battery packs has come down in price. Which they are. Thus, we will see the same as here across the board in the coming years.

Remember. We are talking close to 80% in the last month. In wintery Oslo. Gas prices aside, this means it works.

This is not bragging, it just means that EVs work. And that none of the doom and gloom has any merit.

WildcatYXU wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Meanwhile in the real world, Norway is one of the harshest realistic conditions cars meet.
Bad roads, long distances, mountains, winds, bitter winter cold and ice in the inland, harsh coastal conditions. And EVs are aceing it! If they work here, they work anywhere where people actually live.

In the real world, most of Norway's population lives in the south which is heated by the Gulf stream. That area most likely knows nothing about what harsh conditions are. Try some Canadian cities on the same latitude - you'll learn the meaning of harsh conditions .
Oslo - after all you started bragging about Oslo - has higher winter minimum temperatures and much lower summer maximum temperatures compared to, let's say Montreal. That means less energy spent on your car's heating in winter and you can likely get away driving with your air conditioning off in summer. Much less in Montreal at +30C with 85% relative humidity. Again, more energy for your driving.
Also, Norway is a fairly large country (OK, for and European country, as it is only a third of Ontario by area) with a minuscule population. On the top of it, Norway has good conditions to generate hydroelectric power. So much of it, so after covering a the needs of 5.5 million people it can export whole 15% of generated power (while importing 5% of yearly consumption in times when needed). In a global picture it is nothing. Zero, zilch, nada. Not to mention that covering large areas with dams has environmental impact too. People just don't like to talk about it. Bragging about clean hydro energy feels much better.
Last but not least, there is a massive tax on cars with ICE in Norway. I'd love to see how much of new cars would be BEVs if the conditions would be equal.
So basically there is nothing special about popularity of electric vehicles in Norway. The reverse subsidy combined with good conditions for deployment makes southern Norway a prime area for BEV use. However, that's an exception, not the norm. Definitely nothing to brag about.

The only reason EVs are as successful in Norway as they are today is because the govt has tilted the deck in there favour, if you had to pay the same taxes, tolls and other roads charges as traditional cars nobody would be buying them, except the very wealthy. We know this because when the Danes removed the tax incentives and subsidies on BEVs sales dropped to nearly zero. They had the bring back the subsidies to make them attractive.

In Norway when the subsidies go in 2021 just watch the sales drop off.

Here are the subsidies the Norwegian taxpayer has paid for making BEVs somewhat affordable.

The zero emissions incentives include:

No purchase/import taxes (1990-)
Exemption from 25% VAT on purchase (2001-)
No annual road tax (1996-)
No charges on toll roads or ferries (1997- 2017).
Charges were introduced on ferries with upper limit of maximum 50% of full price (2018-)
Charges on toll roads were introduced with upper limit of maximum 50% of full price (2019)
Free municipal parking (1999- 2017)
Parking fee for EVs was introduced locally with an upper limit of maximum 50% of full price (2018-)
Access to bus lanes (2005-).
New rules allow local authorities to limit the access to only include EVs that carry one or more passengers (2016)
50 % reduced company car tax (2000-2018).
Company car tax reduction was lowered to 40% (2018-)
Exemption from 25% VAT on leasing (2015)
Fiscal compensation for scrapping of fossil vans when converting to a zero emission van (2018)
Allowing holders of driver licence class B to drive electric vans class C1 (light lorrries) up to 2450 kg (2019)

Redd wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

When the Icelandic volcano popped a few years back I had a massive deal which I had to have a meeting in Milano, and another meeting in Klaipeda, so I got in my car (1.6 Mini Clubman Cooper D) and drove, I could’t have done it in any electric car on sale today. On my way home I drove Milano to Molde, left on Friday and arrived home Sunday, that was just over 2000km, I’d hate to think how long that would take in an electric car. BEVs are great for city driving but are absolutely useless if you want to drive long distance in a timely fashion.

I don't think it would be much of a problem today. Granted, would take longer than a petrol/diesel car.

BTW, how was such a long trip in a Mini? I used to own a Mini Cooper S and after a Toronto - Montreal trip, I thought my back was going to give out. I'm a fit person, so I can't imagine what it would've been like for the average Joe.

Loved the car, but it sucked for anything over 2h trips.

I loved it, I had a blast. I took the Mini instead of the Volvo V70 2.4D we also had at the time because I’d change the Volvo to summer tyres on Friday and it started snowing on Saturday morning, the Mini still had winter tyres. The Volvo would have been much better on the autobahn but I took a detour and did the mountain pass between Austria and Italy, the Mini rocked the pass in a way the Volvo couldn’t, I’d also be surprised if it would be any fun in a BEV, it would have killed the battery.

I had the Mini at Vmax multiple times, all said and done the trip distance was 5712 km, the longest road trip I’ve ever done.

The BEV crowd say people don’t drive long distance anymore, it’s bollocks, I’ve done Sydney Gold Coast a few times, that’s 1100km, most people do it in a day. Last year I drove Molde to Are in Sweden, friends of ours have a summer house in Lofoten and live in Jessheim, they do this trip 2-3 times a year with two kids and a trailer, not possible in a BEV today. Per Erik drives an A6 Allroad 3.0 BiTdi, it’s an epic 313hp long distance cruising beast.