General EV sales topic

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
GRA said:
I've got more important things to do than correct each and every one of your mis-statements of my opinions, when I've clearly stated them.

Your opinions are not consistent.

I'm pointing that out.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
No, 10% without subsidies or mandates, i.e. mainstream consumers choose them because they best meet their needs, not because they were bribed or forced to buy them.

Nothing at all about free dumping by ICEs into people's lungs.


Right.

Even if ICE cars are still allowed to dump toxins into people's lungs, BEVs must get to 10% of sales without subsidies or mandates or GRA isn't convinced. And not just any 10%, only mainstream consumers.

Please clarify. Dodging and subject changing will be ignored.



GRA said:
I've got more important things to do than correct each and every one of your mis-statements of my opinions, when I've clearly stated them.

Find something more important to do than discouraging and disparaging BEV ownership in a BEV owners discussion group.
 
jlv said:
WetEV said:
Find something more important to do than discouraging and disparaging BEV ownership in a BEV owners discussion group.
He registered here 10 years ago and still doesn't have a BEV (instead he has lots of excuses why none work for him). Why else is he here?


Because I think a transition away from fossil fuels is critical, of course. The fact that the current alternatives still don't meet my needs a decade after I became a member here is unfortunate. The fact that they also don't meet the general public's requirements is far more serious. I believe that it's important to point out what needs to happen to change that, because until AFVs and their infrastructure provide the capabilities mainstream customers want and expect at a price they can afford to pay, they'll never sell in large numbers - as WetEV wrote, they're at a disadvantage vis-a-vis fossil-fueled ICEs. And they will be until the above conditions are met.

We know what the major factors preventing greater BEV sales are, as they're consistent over every survey: Price, range, infrastructure; charging rate is also critical, and longevity/durability are also major factors. Early adopters tend to believe that because their particular AFV tech suits them, that everyone else shares their priorities, or can be convinced to do so.

It should be obvious that's not the case, and any large-scale changing of opinions is unlikely - after all, belief that Biden stole the 2020 election is held by a far higher % of the U S. population than bought PEVs last year.

I'm encouraged that we are approaching closer to the time a BEV's disadvantages will be eliminated; I expect we'll get there around the 2025-2027 timeframe, but hope it will be sooner. I'm also discouraged that it's taken so long to get here, due in large part to what I believe to be less effective methods of promoting the change, i e. subsidising expensive cars rather than incentivizing and mandating less expensive ones. Since I've previously laid out my arguments on that at length, I won't repeat them again.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
I've got more important things to do than correct each and every one of your mis-statements of my opinions, when I've clearly stated them.

Your opinions are not consistent.

I'm pointing that out.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
Nothing at all about free dumping by ICEs into people's lungs.


Right.


I'm sorry, I thought my intent was clear. Consider the above to have been followed by a rolled-eyes emoji,or else preceded and followed by <sarcasm>.


WetEV said:
Even if ICE cars are still allowed to dump toxins into people's lungs, BEVs must get to 10% of sales without subsidies or mandates or GRA isn't convinced. And not just any 10%, only mainstream consumers.

Please clarify. Dodging and subject changing will be ignored.


One last time, BEVs will be mainstream when customers don't have to be bribed to buy them (or forced to, in countries that can do that) when they reach at least 10% (more realistically 15%, but I'll accept the lower number just for you) of sales.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
I've got more important things to do than correct each and every one of your mis-statements of my opinions, when I've clearly stated them.

Find something more important to do than discouraging and disparaging BEV ownership in a BEV owners discussion group.


When have I ever disparaged BEV ownership? I'm all for it, for the people it works for. As to discouraging, if stating negatives as well as positives discourages ownership, it should. I leave cheerleading to others. I want to know the bad along with the good. I'm perfectly capable of weighing them for myself before making my decisions, and assume that others can as well.
Do you believe that satisfied customers are more likely if they're only told the positives in advance, and get surprised by the negatives only after they've spent tens of thousands and are stuck with their decision?
 
GRA said:
jlv said:
WetEV said:
Find something more important to do than discouraging and disparaging BEV ownership in a BEV owners discussion group.
He registered here 10 years ago and still doesn't have a BEV (instead he has lots of excuses why none work for him). Why else is he here?

Because I think a transition away from fossil fuels is critical, of course. The fact that the current alternatives still don't meet my needs a decade after I became a member here is unfortunate. The fact that they also don't meet the general public's requirements is far more serious. I believe that it's important to point out what needs to happen to change that, because until AFVs and their infrastructure provide the capabilities mainstream customers want and expect at a price they can afford to pay, they'll never sell in large numbers - as WetEV wrote, they're at a disadvantage vis-a-vis fossil-fueled ICEs. And they will be until the above conditions are met.

That's twisted.

I was talking about the free dumping of toxins into people's lungs. That's the "advantage" of fossil fueled ICEs. Sickness and death.

I think either ICE should pay a tax to offset the real damages done or alternatives (BEVs, mass transit, etc) should be subsidized. As the first is politically impossible in the USA, then the second should be continued.
 
GRA said:
One last time, BEVs will be mainstream when customers don't have to be bribed to buy them (or forced to, in countries that can do that) when they reach at least 10% (more realistically 15%, but I'll accept the lower number just for you) of sales.

Would Norway's result convince GRA?

54% market share for BEVs.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-electric-norway-idUSKBN29A0ZT

chart.png



GRA said:
When have I ever disparaged BEV ownership? I'm all for it, for the people it works for. As to discouraging, if stating negatives as well as positives discourages ownership, it should. I leave cheerleading to others. I want to know the bad along with the good.

You are disparaging BEV ownership all the time. Pointing out the negatives and not the positives is disparaging.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
jlv said:
He registered here 10 years ago and still doesn't have a BEV (instead he has lots of excuses why none work for him). Why else is he here?

Because I think a transition away from fossil fuels is critical, of course. The fact that the current alternatives still don't meet my needs a decade after I became a member here is unfortunate. The fact that they also don't meet the general public's requirements is far more serious. I believe that it's important to point out what needs to happen to change that, because until AFVs and their infrastructure provide the capabilities mainstream customers want and expect at a price they can afford to pay, they'll never sell in large numbers - as WetEV wrote, they're at a disadvantage vis-a-vis fossil-fueled ICEs. And they will be until the above conditions are met.

That's twisted.

I was talking about the free dumping of toxins into people's lungs. That's the "advantage" of fossil fueled ICEs. Sickness and death.

I think either ICE should pay a tax to offset the real damages done or alternatives (BEVs, mass transit, etc) should be subsidized. As the first is politically impossible in the USA, then the second should be continued.


Along with capability, convenience and (externalities ignored, which is what the general public does) price. And we differ on subsidizing BEVs. If you insist on subsidies, subsidize charging infrastructure instead, because that's the critical lack. No matter how good BEVs get in the near- and mid-term, if people don't have convenient charging they won't buy them.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
One last time, BEVs will be mainstream when customers don't have to be bribed to buy them (or forced to, in countries that can do that) when they reach at least 10% (more realistically 15%, but I'll accept the lower number just for you) of sales.

Would Norway's result convince GRA?

54% market share for BEVs.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-electric-norway-idUSKBN29A0ZT

chart.png



Sure, and if we give everyone a Hummer and pay for gas for its life, Hummers will have an 80% market share in no time. So what? This says nothing about the natural demand. Norway EV subsidies: https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/


WetEV said:
GRA said:
When have I ever disparaged BEV ownership? I'm all for it, for the people it works for. As to discouraging, if stating negatives as well as positives discourages ownership, it should. I leave cheerleading to others. I want to know the bad along with the good.

You are disparaging BEV ownership all the time. Pointing out the negatives and not the positives is disparaging.


If I do so all the time, you should have no problem providing an example of same. I point out both when needed, although the need to point out the positives is limited since usually others here will have already done so - we all know what they are. But balance is needed, and BEVs aren't for everyone yet. For now, in most people's minds they aren't for them, whether or not they would actually work for them. PHEVs provide a reasonably painless foot-in-the-door, providing much of the benefit of a BEV plus all of an ICE's capability and infrastructure, and at a much lower price. I'm happy to recommend whichever one I think best fits someone's needs, or an HEV FTM if that's the best fit. But they will choose.
 
GRA said:
Along with capability, convenience and (externalities ignored, which is what the general public does) price. And we differ on subsidizing BEVs. If you insist on subsidies, subsidize charging infrastructure instead, because that's the critical lack. No matter how good BEVs get in the near- and mid-term, if people don't have convenient charging they won't buy them.

BEVs win for convenience, which you might learn if you owned one, at least for the "daily driver" use. Long trips are different, and that's what you focus on, you just want to disparage BEVs.

Capability? Close to even. All of the places that most people want to go to, they can.

Quiet? Not mentioned, you just want to disparage BEVs.

Smooth, low vibration? Not mentioned, you just want to disparage BEVs.

Driving response? Not mentioned, you just want to disparage BEVs.

Features like remote climate control? Not mentioned, you just want to disparage BEVs.

Not all of the general public ignores externalities, after all that's why Ronald Reagan created CARB. That is one reason why there are subsidies for BEVs. You ignore externalities, you want to disparage BEVs.

Price is getting closer. Near future, BEVs are going to be cheaper than comparable ICEs. 2025? 2028?
 
GRA said:
Sure, and if we give everyone a Hummer and pay for gas for its life, Hummers will have an 80% market share in no time. So what? This says nothing about the natural demand. Norway EV subsidies: https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/

Polluter pays. You don't like? BEV purchases are not subsidized, polluting cars pay taxes.

That's not giving someone a Hummer. I like herring kippered, not red. Although I'd like to try some of the traditional smoked kippers that are actually red in color... Which seems to be the root of the phrase.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Along with capability, convenience and (externalities ignored, which is what the general public does) price. And we differ on subsidizing BEVs. If you insist on subsidies, subsidize charging infrastructure instead, because that's the critical lack. No matter how good BEVs get in the near- and mid-term, if people don't have convenient charging they won't buy them.

BEVs win for convenience, which you might learn if you owned one, at least for the "daily driver" use.


Oh, for heaven's sake, we've been over this before. It doesn't win for convenience if you don't have convenient L2 charging, and I and virtually all apartment dwellers don't. At best I have L1 via a long extension cord, and most apartment dwellers don't even have that option. And L1 is far too limiting if a BEV is your only vehicle, something which took me less than a week to 'learn' (a couple of days were enough) more than two decades back.

As it is, my daily driver is a bicycle, which is both more environmentally friendly and more convenient than a BEV would be for the trips I use it for.


WetEV said:
Long trips are different, and that's what you focus on, you just want to disparage BEVs.


I focus on them because that's all I need a car for, and because most car buyers are unwilling to accept a car that is limited to local use.

.
WetEV said:
Capability? Close to even. All of the places that most people want to go to, they can.


No, they are getting closer, but still far short of even, both because of the cars and the lack of infrastructure. Any ICE will take anyone anywhere they choose to go (on pavement) with free choice of route and stopping places in a minimal amount of time, with maximum flexibility and with essentially zero planning required. BEVs and their infrastructure are still far from achieving that. We went over this about a month ago using a trip to Glacier as an example. Have you forgotten?


WetEV said:
Quiet? Not mentioned, you just want to disparage BEVs


As I pointed out last month, BEVs aren't inherently queter than ICEs, as wind, tire and gear noise can all be significant, and engine noise may cover those up. AOTBE, BEVs should have a noise advantage, but things often aren't equal - while the Model S is quieter than just about all its competition, the Model 3 isn't: ihttps://forums.tesla.com/discussion/171096/cabin-noise


I don't make personal comments about vehicle noise levels now because my hearing is entirely artificial and thus unrepresentative of what someone with natural hearing will hear. Besides, I can make virtually any car completely silent by turning off my hearing aids, so leave noise comments to others.


WetEV said:
Smooth, low vibration? Not mentioned, you just want to disparage BEVs.


Some are, some aren't. The Bolt I drove wasn't noticeably smoother or lower vibration than an ICE, although I might have noticed a difference if I'd been able to drive them back-to-back. Thanks to its firm suspension it had a noticeably worse ride off pavement than my Forester; it was so rough I wouldn't want to take any passenger with a weak stomach in it. No doubt there are BEVs with different characteristics, but that's just normal variation and also holds for ICEs.


WetEV said:
Driving response? Not mentioned, you just want to disparage BEVs.


I guess someone else must have posted this under my name:
A few final items re the Bolt. Coming back over Sonora Pass in daylight allowed me to push it more, and no mistake, this thing's a pocket rocket. I think the last time I had that much fun on a winding two-lane was when my friend let me drive his M3 convertible! Not only does it handle well, but passing's a cinch in the mountains. Nothing like having sea level power at any altitude.

https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=18907&p=592144&hilit=Bolt+suspension#p592144

Yeah, not mentioned at all, and nothing but disparagement. Other BEVs were worse, none that I've driven yet were better, although I'd say the e-Golf felt more refined all-round, but I only got to try that on a dealer test drive. But don't let facts get in the way of your rant.


WetEV said:
Features like remote climate control? Not mentioned, you just want to disparage BEVs.


Nice to have but a minor convenience, albeit more necessary for a BEV given their more limited range in cold weather. Certainly doesn't outweigh current ICEs cold-weather range with heat advantages. Personally, I find heated seats adequate until the ICE warms up enough to put out heat, but I can see some people valuing cabin pre-heating or cooling more than I do.


WetEV said:
Not all of the general public ignores externalities, after all that's why Ronald Reagan created CARB. That is one reason why there are subsidies for BEVs. You ignore externalities, you want to disparage BEVs.


Why no, not all of them ignore externalities, but only a small %, currently no more than 2%, care enough to make them choose a ZEV over an ICE.

And no, I don't ignore externalities, they're a large part of the reason I do almost all of my local travel by foot, bike and/or electrified mass transit, and are entirely the reason why I haven't driven out of state or flown for over a decade. But don't let facts get in your way.


WetEV said:
Price is getting closer. Near future, BEVs are going to be cheaper than comparable ICEs. 2025? 2028?


I consider that mid-term rather than near future, which would be 2022-2023, but we agree on the likely timeframe. Or course, we still won't have the necessary charging infrastructure by then. Even if the Dems push their own infrastructure plan and ignore the Reps, 50k chargers is a drop in the bucket unless they're all QCs. Some years back I mentioned that the City of San Francisco alone had over 400k publicly-accessible parking spaces, so if they were all L2 Biden's plan would only take care of San Francisco, with a few tens of thousands left over for the rest of the country. Seeing as how there's currently somewhere over 270 million LDVs in the fleet, that's not going to be significant, even subtracting the % of households who could charge at home now, or at least have the option to install it.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Sure, and if we give everyone a Hummer and pay for gas for its life, Hummers will have an 80% market share in no time. So what? This says nothing about the natural demand. Norway EV subsidies: https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/

Polluter pays. You don't like? BEV purchases are not subsidized, polluting cars pay taxes.

That's not giving someone a Hummer. I like herring kippered, not red. Although I'd like to try some of the traditional smoked kippers that are actually red in color... Which seems to be the root of the phrase.


I'm all for polluter pays, but as has been previously discussed that's not politically feasible here now, at least at the national level. OTOH, we do have cap&trade here in California, and that is used to fund our state rebates as well as other programs like subsidies to buy ZEV school buses.

BTW, Norway is able to provide such generous subsidies because of a small population and lots of royalties from oil and gas. But again, high sales of a heavily subsidized product say nothing about the natural demand.

Actually, the fact that despite BEVs being cheaper to buy there thanks to the subsidies, plus all the other price breaks and perks they get, ICEs still account for over 1/3 of sales doesn't speak well for the natural demand of BEVs.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Sure, and if we give everyone a Hummer and pay for gas for its life, Hummers will have an 80% market share in no time. So what? This says nothing about the natural demand. Norway EV subsidies: https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/

Polluter pays. You don't like? BEV purchases are not subsidized, polluting cars pay taxes.

That's not giving someone a Hummer. I like herring kippered, not red. Although I'd like to try some of the traditional smoked kippers that are actually red in color... Which seems to be the root of the phrase.


I'm all for polluter pays, but as has been previously discussed that's not politically feasible here now, at least at the national level. OTOH, we do have cap&trade here in California, and that is used to fund our state rebates as well as other programs like subsidies to buy ZEV school buses.

BTW, Norway is able to provide such generous subsidies because of a small population and lots of royalties from oil and gas. But again, high sales of a heavily subsidized product say nothing about the natural demand.

You got that backasswards there son.

BEV sales are not subsidized or taxed in Norway. ICE sales are taxed. Polluter pays.

VWGplussVWE-1024x480.png



GRA said:
Actually, the fact that despite BEVs being cheaper to buy there thanks to the subsidies, plus all the other price breaks and perks they get, ICEs still account for over 1/3 of sales doesn't speak well for the natural demand of BEVs.

Failure to add. 9+9+8 = ? Not over 33, last I checked. That's last year. Or did last week do worse? I suspect that 100% BEVs and PHEVs wouldn't convince GRA.

chart.png
 
WetEV said:
BEV sales are not subsidized or taxed in Norway. ICE sales are taxed. Polluter pays.
Nice graphic. Since the CO2 and NOx taxes are itemized, I would call the VAT savings a subsidy.
I've read before that Norway wants EVs to be the same cost or cheaper than the ICE twin. I imagine the numbers are massaged until that is true.

Last, I do think it is true that Norway has made the rational market decision to sell its fossil extractions outside the country rather than consume them locally. Some of the Emirate countries have come to the same conclusion. However, that economic choice to convert to EV would not change if Norway did not have fossil resources, it would simply be a case of saving on imported oil costs. Netherlands is a good mini-Norway example without the fossil resources. Iceland is an even better example.

So as usual, GRA is barking up the wrong tree. The main drivers [sic] for Norway are inexpensive clean energy and a willing populace.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Along with capability, convenience and (externalities ignored, which is what the general public does) price. And we differ on subsidizing BEVs. If you insist on subsidies, subsidize charging infrastructure instead, because that's the critical lack. No matter how good BEVs get in the near- and mid-term, if people don't have convenient charging they won't buy them.

BEVs win for convenience, which you might learn if you owned one, at least for the "daily driver" use.

Oh, for heaven's sake, we've been over this before. It doesn't win for convenience if you don't have convenient L2 charging, and I and virtually all apartment dwellers don't. At best I have L1 via a long extension cord, and most apartment dwellers don't even have that option. And L1 is far too limiting if a BEV is your only vehicle, something which took me less than a week to 'learn' (a couple of days were enough) more than two decades back.

Yes, we keep repeating this point. Again and again.

Near term, 2 to 3 years, roughly the next doubling of BEVs to 4%, there are plenty of people that have convenient L2 charging.

Somewhat longer term, 4 to 6 years, to 8%, there are plenty of people that have convenient L2 charging.

16% shouldn't be a problem as well.

32%, same.

So yes, 64% might be a problem. Sometime in a decade or so, we need to start to address the problem of apartment charging.

You are not everyone. I used L1 only for a year, and it worked just fine. Co-worker's 2013 Leaf for years. You are different than me. I get that. Do you?
 
Close to half of Oslo, Norway households live in shared buildings
https://www.statista.com/statistics/867171/share-of-residents-per-housing-type-in-norway/

But it has not stopped their transition to EV.
Who wudda thunk !???
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Polluter pays. You don't like? BEV purchases are not subsidized, polluting cars pay taxes.

That's not giving someone a Hummer. I like herring kippered, not red. Although I'd like to try some of the traditional smoked kippers that are actually red in color... Which seems to be the root of the phrase.


I'm all for polluter pays, but as has been previously discussed that's not politically feasible here now, at least at the national level. OTOH, we do have cap&trade here in California, and that is used to fund our state rebates as well as other programs like subsidies to buy ZEV school buses.

BTW, Norway is able to provide such generous subsidies because of a small population and lots of royalties from oil and gas. But again, high sales of a heavily subsidized product say nothing about the natural demand.

You got that backasswards there son.

BEV sales are not subsidized or taxed in Norway. ICE sales are taxed. Polluter pays.

VWGplussVWE-1024x480.png


If the consumer is benefitting monetarily, in this case by the lack of VAT which is imposed on every other purchase, that's a subsidy in my book, because it's coming out of money the government would otherwise be collecting. I note the lack of a weight tax on PEVs also, when they are heavier. Is this an even playing field where you can determine the underlying demand, or does it just tell us that given enough subsidies and perks, you can sell just about anything in large numbers? See my Hummer example.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
Actually, the fact that despite BEVs being cheaper to buy there thanks to the subsidies, plus all the other price breaks and perks they get, ICEs still account for over 1/3 of sales doesn't speak well for the natural demand of BEVs.

Failure to add. 9+9+8 = ? Not over 33, last I checked. That's last year. Or did last week do worse? I suspect that 100% BEVs and PHEVs wouldn't convince GRA.

chart.png


Must have misremembered the %. [Edit] I did mis-remember it, but was off in the other direction, it was only 54.3% for BEVs in 2020. See
Electric cars rise to record 54% market share in Norway in 2020
So, cars with ICEs (ICE/HEV/PHEV) made up 45.7% despite all the subsidies and incentives.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
BEVs win for convenience, which you might learn if you owned one, at least for the "daily driver" use.

Oh, for heaven's sake, we've been over this before. It doesn't win for convenience if you don't have convenient L2 charging, and I and virtually all apartment dwellers don't. At best I have L1 via a long extension cord, and most apartment dwellers don't even have that option. And L1 is far too limiting if a BEV is your only vehicle, something which took me less than a week to 'learn' (a couple of days were enough) more than two decades back.

Yes, we keep repeating this point. Again and again.

Near term, 2 to 3 years, roughly the next doubling of BEVs to 4%, there are plenty of people that have convenient L2 charging.

Somewhat longer term, 4 to 6 years, to 8%, there are plenty of people that have convenient L2 charging.

16% shouldn't be a problem as well.

32%, same.

So yes, 64% might be a problem. Sometime in a decade or so, we need to start to address the problem of apartment charging.

You are not everyone. I used L1 only for a year, and it worked just fine. Co-worker's 2013 Leaf for years. You are different than me. I get that. Do you?


I used L1 for a week, and it was severely limiting. Arrived home with a low SoC, and suddenly wanted to go out again. Too bad, couldn't for several hours. Happened to me twice. Since I was trying to simulate BEV ownership that week, I didn't drive my ICE instead, and stayed home. OTOH, in a PHEV L1 would be a non-event besides burning a bit more gas. Can L1 work for some BEV owners? Sure, if they've got multiple cars, or NEVER need to go anywhere on the spur of the moment, or maybe if they have access to Uber or a taxi and are willing able to pay for that. But remember, in the U.S. per Plug-in America, only 56% of households (that number's a few years old, so it could be better or worse now) had access to charging at home. At that time there were around 120 million households here, so 44% of that would be 52.8 million. Do you think we're going to retrofit that many apartments and condos plus on-street spaces with L2 in a decade or two? You can bet that the % of people who don't have access to charging is concentrated among lower-income apartment dwellers, especially in dense urban areas where the need for and benefit of ZEVs is greatest. And why did 1/5th of Californians who owned PEVs go back to ICEs?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the sociodemographics of the EV abandoners was the opposite of the traits that correlate highly with buying an EV. (The sample size here is slightly smaller at 1,727 households, 356 of whom left the EV life.) They were more likely to have smaller households and have fewer vehicles in the household; they were younger, earned less, rented more, were less likely to live in a detached house, and were less likely to be male than the Californians who stuck with EVs. Electric driving range and the convenience of charging were the pain points, but charging was the biggest culprit: the authors found that "[f]or a one-point increase in satisfaction with the convenience of charging a BEV, there are 19.5% lower odds of discontinuing BEV adoption. . . ."

Also unsurprisingly, those keeping their EVs had more access to level 2 (240 V AC) charging at home, as well as more access to charging generally. . . .
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/0...an-ev-drivers-revert-to-piston-power-but-why/


The original survey is here, if you've got access:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00814-9

Oddly enough, there was a slightly higher % of people switching back to ICEs from PHEVs (20%) than BEVs (18%), which makes no sense on a rational basis, unless they were leasing and made the switch at the next opportunity, because they simply couldn't charge and leasing an ICE was much cheaper. I'd love to see if the difference was statistically significant. Or maybe most of them had Volts, and simply wanted more room.
 
SageBrush said:
WetEV said:
BEV sales are not subsidized or taxed in Norway. ICE sales are taxed. Polluter pays.
Nice graphic. Since the CO2 and NOx taxes are itemized, I would call the VAT savings a subsidy.
I've read before that Norway wants EVs to be the same cost or cheaper than the ICE twin. I imagine the numbers are massaged until that is true.

Last, I do think it is true that Norway has made the rational market decision to sell its fossil extractions outside the country rather than consume them locally. Some of the Emirate countries have come to the same conclusion. However, that economic choice to convert to EV would not change if Norway did not have fossil resources, it would simply be a case of saving on imported oil costs. Netherlands is a good mini-Norway example without the fossil resources. Iceland is an even better example.

So as usual, GRA is barking up the wrong tree. The main drivers [sic] for Norway are inexpensive clean energy and a willing populace.


Don't forget a willingness to dump most of their oil and gas emissions in other countries. Not that we are any better, of course, but I'd be a lot more impressed with Norway's environmental commitment if they stopped extracting oil and gas from the North Sea, and paid for the EV subsidies out of their own pockets. This site says 14% of Norway's gov't revenue comes directly or indirectly from oil and gas, and that it's the largest single source:

https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/ec...'s total net cash,to the National Budget 2021
 
GRA said:
cars with ICEs (ICE/HEV/PHEV) made up 45.7% despite all the subsidies and incentives.
Cars with plugs make up 74% of sales in Norway in 2020.

More than half of PHEV miles in Norway are all-electric.
 
Back
Top