Denmark to ban petrol and diesel car sales by 2030(euractiv.com)
euractiv.com
Denmark to ban petrol and diesel car sales by 2030
https://www.euractiv.com/section/electric-cars/news/denmark-to-ban-petrol-and-diesel-car-sales-by-2030/
407 comments
> I've come around though. I think all the bastardized carbon accounting, market based solutions are on average quite bad.
Carbon taxing works well when it's applied - but it's very hard to create the political consensus to impose it. For example, the high cost of fuel in Europe has driven cars to an average MPG equivalent of 45 versus the average of 33 in US. That's nothing to sneeze at, it's 40% more for a given amount of CO2 - and that's after the continous fuel efficiency improvements happening on both sides in recent decades: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/0...
However, the EU fuel taxes are not actually carbon taxes, they are road taxes. Imposing the same tax on industry and power generation, as pure carbon taxes, would have immense political blow back.
So I really wonder how do you think "ban all non-renewable electric stations and cement factories" would work if we can't even accept a 3-10% price increase on these products?
Carbon taxing works well when it's applied - but it's very hard to create the political consensus to impose it. For example, the high cost of fuel in Europe has driven cars to an average MPG equivalent of 45 versus the average of 33 in US. That's nothing to sneeze at, it's 40% more for a given amount of CO2 - and that's after the continous fuel efficiency improvements happening on both sides in recent decades: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/0...
However, the EU fuel taxes are not actually carbon taxes, they are road taxes. Imposing the same tax on industry and power generation, as pure carbon taxes, would have immense political blow back.
So I really wonder how do you think "ban all non-renewable electric stations and cement factories" would work if we can't even accept a 3-10% price increase on these products?
The comparison in the graph you linked isn't particularly useful.
The US, having cheap gasoline, uses gasoline vehicles in far more roles than say, the EU does, where diesel is far more common. "Light commercial" might as well read "should have been diesel" from an MPG standpoint.
The US, having cheap gasoline, uses gasoline vehicles in far more roles than say, the EU does, where diesel is far more common. "Light commercial" might as well read "should have been diesel" from an MPG standpoint.
That's the point of carbon taxes, isn't it? It's irrelevant what and how people drive, and they certainly don't give a buck about carbon emissions, yet they unwittingly alter their behavior with the effect of reducing the taxed behavior.
By the way, diesel is now typically more expensive than gasoline in Europe too, and the tax embodied in the price is roughly proportional to the carbon content of both. In the past there used to be a lower tax on diesel in some countries as an aid to farmers and the transport industry, but it is less common now.
By the way, diesel is now typically more expensive than gasoline in Europe too, and the tax embodied in the price is roughly proportional to the carbon content of both. In the past there used to be a lower tax on diesel in some countries as an aid to farmers and the transport industry, but it is less common now.
> By the way, diesel is now typically more expensive than gasoline in Europe too
Really? Which countries? Not in the european countries I'm familiar with.
Really? Which countries? Not in the european countries I'm familiar with.
Better to have the pollution we know, rather than the unknown pollution from the avreage diesel engine. American buses are 10x cleaner.
I think the issue with carbon taxes is a 10-20% reduction isn't enough. A 75% reduction is needed. Which means some sectors the reduction will have to be more than that.
At that point bans make more sense.
At that point bans make more sense.
Exactly what I meant. The whole vehicle tax, externality-pricing approach does not make sense if you walk away from the chalkboard and look at the big picture.
Also, not every 20% is the same. 20% reductions in emmisions because 20% of the fleet is electric-from-solar is a lot closer to 100% than 20% because of lighter cars and more efficient ICEs.
Also, not every 20% is the same. 20% reductions in emmisions because 20% of the fleet is electric-from-solar is a lot closer to 100% than 20% because of lighter cars and more efficient ICEs.
Needed for what? Optimal range for plants growth is 1000-1500ppm.
Don't forget US Gallons are smaller than "proper" imperial ones
OP is using US gallons, though.
Are you sure? There are cars that are that efficient, but as an average? In real life?
The average European car is very different from the average US car. The most sold cars in the US are the Ford F series, in the EU it's the VW Golf and similar hatchbacks.
There are a lot of forces at play here, among others tax rates (which cause the F150 to get bigger and European cars to get lighter), fuel prices, culture (in Europe a big truck won't impress anyone, you get other types of cars for that), average and maximum distance traveled (in Europe nobody fantasizes about roadtrips), road conditions (high population density makes offroad driving less important in rural Europe than in rural America), etc
There are a lot of forces at play here, among others tax rates (which cause the F150 to get bigger and European cars to get lighter), fuel prices, culture (in Europe a big truck won't impress anyone, you get other types of cars for that), average and maximum distance traveled (in Europe nobody fantasizes about roadtrips), road conditions (high population density makes offroad driving less important in rural Europe than in rural America), etc
You didn't mention parking. In many European cities I've visited, you'd barely be able to park a larger American car almost anywhere. Last trip over there, I rented an MPV which effectively fit a family with seats for two children, plus luggage, in what was barely bigger than an Australian hatchback. And even that was nerve-wracking to drive in some underground carparks, or park in old-town streets.
in Europe nobody fantasizes about roadtrips
That's an interesting tidbit. I always thought that they did. I thought the automotive term "GT" meant "Grand Tour" and was European in inspiration.
That's what I get for culling most of my European auto culture information from Top Gear.
That's an interesting tidbit. I always thought that they did. I thought the automotive term "GT" meant "Grand Tour" and was European in inspiration.
That's what I get for culling most of my European auto culture information from Top Gear.
>in Europe nobody fantasizes about roadtrips
Even besides the German brands (VW, Mercedes, BMW), there are a huge number of European car manufacturers (Skoda, Peugeot, citroen) > showing ability and demand for cars in Europe. Also, the small size and mostly flat nature of Europe, cultural diversity, and longer vacation time all contribute to Europeans traveling more than Americans. Not to mention excellent roads, family/student hostels for less expensive trips (pre-Airbnb era) and obviously Visa free travel. So yes Europeans might not have the same idea of long distance road trips we have in the US but that is not to say they don't take the same trips or more than in the US
Even besides the German brands (VW, Mercedes, BMW), there are a huge number of European car manufacturers (Skoda, Peugeot, citroen) > showing ability and demand for cars in Europe. Also, the small size and mostly flat nature of Europe, cultural diversity, and longer vacation time all contribute to Europeans traveling more than Americans. Not to mention excellent roads, family/student hostels for less expensive trips (pre-Airbnb era) and obviously Visa free travel. So yes Europeans might not have the same idea of long distance road trips we have in the US but that is not to say they don't take the same trips or more than in the US
In the US it’s a pretty normal thing to drive coast to coast, that’s equivalent distance to driving London to Moscow, and that is a very rare thing to do. Actually the equivalent in Europe is young people doing interrail trips (a month long unlimited rail ticket). People I think mostly drive to do a specific trip, like maybe going skiing or even just going across the border to shop. But there isn’t the same prevalence of the road trip, it is strange thing in a way, but it is true. There is a particular romance that people are attracted to in different places. Funnily enough, if a European young person is going to take a road trip they’re probably just as likely to fly to the US and do it there.
Europe nobody fantasizes about roadtrips
So how do you explain the countless German and Dutch cars driving around forests of Norway and Sweden every summer?
So how do you explain the countless German and Dutch cars driving around forests of Norway and Sweden every summer?
Because Finland is sparsely populated (and long) for an EU country, road trips are a thing here, especially for a winter holiday to Lapland. We even have a company advertise car ferries to Germany, so some must fantasize about a road trip!
Even then, there are no American size cars. Most sold cars are European or Japanese station wagons.
Even then, there are no American size cars. Most sold cars are European or Japanese station wagons.
That's kind of a bad comparison because the Ford F-Series (or any other pickup platform) is many different vehicles under one name.
basically in europe there are not a lot of pickups to none out there.
in europe there is a trend for SUVs at the moment, but besides that we mostly buy limousines.
This is a "limousine" in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine#/media/File:98-02_Li...
So I assume you were using the "sedan" interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine#/media/File:98-02_Li...
So I assume you were using the "sedan" interpretation.
There are plenty of pickups in Europe. It's just that they're based on vans, with a tray on the back instead of a box. And very few people are silly enough to buy one as their personal vehicle.
If we need to move mulch or the like, we rent/buy trailers.
If we need to move mulch or the like, we rent/buy trailers.
Indeed but it's funny that most SUVs are (what I'd call) fake SUVs. They look beefy and big but they have a 1.6 liter engine and can still only pull 1200-1400 kg (like the Hyundai ix35). And then there are the real ones that may at first glance look the same but easily pull up to or over 2400 kg (Volvo xc90 versions).
>and big but they have a 1.6 liter engine and can still only pull 1200-1400 kg
This is a reflection of the vehicle platforms they're built on. You take a Civic or a Dart slap on AWD, a lift kit and extra 500-1000lb of body/interior and call it a CRV or a Cherokee and there's not much spare capacity left to haul cargo or tow trailers.
This is a reflection of the vehicle platforms they're built on. You take a Civic or a Dart slap on AWD, a lift kit and extra 500-1000lb of body/interior and call it a CRV or a Cherokee and there's not much spare capacity left to haul cargo or tow trailers.
Mostly they don't even slap on AWD :)
I'm sure that they were using US gallons. Whether this is data is accurate is another matter.
According to the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), Europe averaged 46 MPG (US gallons, "normalized to CAFE test cycles") in 2015 [1], compared to something like 37 MPG in the US.
This NY Times article [2] summarizes the report, with some nice graphs.
[1] https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/201...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/03/climate/us-fu...
According to the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), Europe averaged 46 MPG (US gallons, "normalized to CAFE test cycles") in 2015 [1], compared to something like 37 MPG in the US.
This NY Times article [2] summarizes the report, with some nice graphs.
[1] https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/201...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/03/climate/us-fu...
I share your parent's skepticism. It seems obvious that cars sold in the US are not averaging 37 MPG when the average car is roughly a RAV4 that gets 22/29.(EDIT: It occurs to me that the RAV4 may be classified as a light truck -- even so, I can go pick a passenger car...)
As far as I can tell taking a quick look at your links, the difference can be in two things. First, these are fuel economy standards companies are expected to hit, and not reporting on whether they hit them or missed and paid penalties. Second there's the phrase "Assumes manufacturers fully use low-GWP A/C refrigerants credits". Apparently fuel economy numbers are boosted by these credits--actual fuel economy isn't the same thing, it appears?
(EDIT: Overall fuel economy for cars and trucks combined was 24.8 mpg in MY2015 [1])
[1] https://phys.org/news/2016-11-average-fuel-economy-high-mpg....
As far as I can tell taking a quick look at your links, the difference can be in two things. First, these are fuel economy standards companies are expected to hit, and not reporting on whether they hit them or missed and paid penalties. Second there's the phrase "Assumes manufacturers fully use low-GWP A/C refrigerants credits". Apparently fuel economy numbers are boosted by these credits--actual fuel economy isn't the same thing, it appears?
(EDIT: Overall fuel economy for cars and trucks combined was 24.8 mpg in MY2015 [1])
[1] https://phys.org/news/2016-11-average-fuel-economy-high-mpg....
Additional notes:
The top 4 best-selling passenger cars are the Honda Accord and Civic, and the Toyota Camry and Corolla [1].
Their "combined city/highway" fuel efficiences are respectively 30, 34, 27, and 32 mpg for the base engine [2][3][4][5].
How can this possibly work out to 37 mpg overall? There aren't enough hybrid sales to bring that number up.
[1] http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2018/08/july-2018-ytd-u-s-passe... [2] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/accord/2017/features-specs/ [3] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/2017/features-specs/ [4] https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/camry/2017/features-specs/ [5] https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla/2017/features-specs/
The top 4 best-selling passenger cars are the Honda Accord and Civic, and the Toyota Camry and Corolla [1].
Their "combined city/highway" fuel efficiences are respectively 30, 34, 27, and 32 mpg for the base engine [2][3][4][5].
How can this possibly work out to 37 mpg overall? There aren't enough hybrid sales to bring that number up.
[1] http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2018/08/july-2018-ytd-u-s-passe... [2] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/accord/2017/features-specs/ [3] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/2017/features-specs/ [4] https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/camry/2017/features-specs/ [5] https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla/2017/features-specs/
Thanks for finding some stats. Based on the cars I see driving in the UK, I'm sure plenty of people buy cars that claim to do 55mpg, and many of those cars will actually do 55mpg. But as an average? - I'm just a bit unconvinced.
(Perhaps the mpgs were added up and divided by N? That doesn't always provide the answer you're looking for.)
(Perhaps the mpgs were added up and divided by N? That doesn't always provide the answer you're looking for.)
If you compare US cars to EU cars on average then:
- EU cars are much smaller
- hp of engines is much lower
> "skepticism" "It seems obvious"
Pick one please.
> "skepticism" "It seems obvious"
Pick one please.
I wasn't saying anything about EU cars -- why are you bringing that up?
I am skeptical of the 37mpg claim because it seems clear to me that the average car sold in the US isn't that efficient. What's the contradiction?
I am skeptical of the 37mpg claim because it seems clear to me that the average car sold in the US isn't that efficient. What's the contradiction?
Europe and Japan both use smaller engine sizes, increasing fuel economy pretty drastically compared to North America. Especially when your average speed might be 80 km/hr, rather than 80 miles an hour. I don't know if their different testing regimes reflect that (maybe).
Anecdote: several years ago, I got the lightest, smallest-engined, most-efficient car I could find here in Canada, a Toyota Yaris. And using a calculator to convert units, I see that even so, it only gets me ~40 US MPG (real world) - most because of highway speeds. When I drive mostly 80km/hr, it's about 42 US MPG. When I drive mostly 120 km/hr, it's more like 36 US MPG. The same car is sold in Japan/EU with a 1.2 litre engine, vs the 1.5 litre in North America. Similar things happen with many other models.
Anecdote: several years ago, I got the lightest, smallest-engined, most-efficient car I could find here in Canada, a Toyota Yaris. And using a calculator to convert units, I see that even so, it only gets me ~40 US MPG (real world) - most because of highway speeds. When I drive mostly 80km/hr, it's about 42 US MPG. When I drive mostly 120 km/hr, it's more like 36 US MPG. The same car is sold in Japan/EU with a 1.2 litre engine, vs the 1.5 litre in North America. Similar things happen with many other models.
A Toyota Camry Hybrid will get better MPG with a 2.5 liter engine, and give more space for passengers and cargo, than the Yaris. Also it has EV-like torque.
My relatives drive a Camry Hybrid, and I've used it a fair bit. It certainly does have better torque, and slightly better real world mileage (5.5 litre/100km for the Camry, vs my Yaris at 6.0 litre/100km). It also drives more comfortably on the highway. It's less affected by wind/passenger weight, though downshifting to 4th has never been an issue for me.
However, as a sedan, I strongly dispute the "more space for passengers and cargo". The trunk is larger in the camry, but has severe limits that the Yaris, a hatchback, does not. Carrying a mini fridge, for example, is out of the question in a Camry, but easy in a Yaris (as long as you only have 1 or 2 passengers). Also, the camry has better rear-seat leg room, but much less height, such that my head (185cm) touches the roof in the back seats. Finally, the Yaris has better clearance for rough roads, and much better turning radius and visibility for city driving. (Oh, and my cost after 150000km, including purchase, fuel, and oil changes, is just approaching the purchase price of a Camry Hybrid)
I wish the Yaris Hybrid, available in Japan, was available in North America.
However, as a sedan, I strongly dispute the "more space for passengers and cargo". The trunk is larger in the camry, but has severe limits that the Yaris, a hatchback, does not. Carrying a mini fridge, for example, is out of the question in a Camry, but easy in a Yaris (as long as you only have 1 or 2 passengers). Also, the camry has better rear-seat leg room, but much less height, such that my head (185cm) touches the roof in the back seats. Finally, the Yaris has better clearance for rough roads, and much better turning radius and visibility for city driving. (Oh, and my cost after 150000km, including purchase, fuel, and oil changes, is just approaching the purchase price of a Camry Hybrid)
I wish the Yaris Hybrid, available in Japan, was available in North America.
Last weekend, I took an assembled office chair to my parents in the back seat of my Camry Hybrid. If you put the fridge in the back seat, it would probably fit.
And I used to haul my 46" HDTV in my 99 Sentra, pretty sure it will fit in Camry too.
Camry is big for city driving. Moving to Seattle again reminds me how much better a Yaris can parallel park than my 'boat'.
I'm consistently driving 1100 miles a month on 28 gallons. This may change after the upcoming move, since walking will replace driving as primary transportation.
And I used to haul my 46" HDTV in my 99 Sentra, pretty sure it will fit in Camry too.
Camry is big for city driving. Moving to Seattle again reminds me how much better a Yaris can parallel park than my 'boat'.
I'm consistently driving 1100 miles a month on 28 gallons. This may change after the upcoming move, since walking will replace driving as primary transportation.
Definitely tradeoffs with any model of car. I'm hopeful that when I'm ready to get a new car (in another 5 years or so...) that the electric car landscape has changed enough that there's something that ticks more boxes for me. A hatchback really fits best with how I use a car (an SUV would provide most of the same, but be much less fun in the city)
Unfortunately, production of cars (and consumerism in general) is extremely bad for carbon emissions and for the environment. Carbon emissions from the production of 1 car generally rival the lifetime emissions from the tailpipe [1]. If you have no choice but to replace an old car for new then sure, get a more efficient one. If you're replacing cars every 3 years like an average westerner, given the age of cars I see on the road, you are doing extreme harm. Old cars that are running should be incentivized to continue to be on the road, barring any other pollutant or smog issues.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...
Consumerism is bad for the planet, 100% true. However the
"every 3 years like an average westerner" remark needs citation. In the context of the article (Denmark) it is certainly not true. Cars are so expensive (the 180% tax is absolutely real - I've paid it) that people hold on to cars longer and buy used more. In fact, the number of people with zero cars would be hard to believe if you come from California.
Alas, the politics are made by city people (who have access to really good public transport) and paid for by people in suburbia who _have_ to own a car to survive (and no, we can't just move everyone to the city).
EDIT: typos
Alas, the politics are made by city people (who have access to really good public transport) and paid for by people in suburbia who _have_ to own a car to survive (and no, we can't just move everyone to the city).
EDIT: typos
> that people hold on to cars longer and buy used more
And yet the average age of the car in Denmark is 8.9 years [1]. For comparison Germany is at 9.3 year, and US is at 11.6 years [2]
[1] http://www.aut.fi/en/statistics/international_statistics/ave... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/261881/average-age-of-li...
And yet the average age of the car in Denmark is 8.9 years [1]. For comparison Germany is at 9.3 year, and US is at 11.6 years [2]
[1] http://www.aut.fi/en/statistics/international_statistics/ave... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/261881/average-age-of-li...
The two sources is different, so it might be good to be wary about comparing them. Could be right though.
But anyway, these average ages may be due to little used old cars being taken out of registry, to avoid annual fixed taxes? This has not much impact on the average age of cars used in daily traffic.
FWIW, I'm from Finland, also with a history of high car purchase taxes, and the average in above data is almost 12 years. The oldest cars, however, have lower annual car tax (they had the highest tax at purchase time).
BTW I understand Denmark was about to lower the car purchase tax from 180 % to 100 % or so?
But anyway, these average ages may be due to little used old cars being taken out of registry, to avoid annual fixed taxes? This has not much impact on the average age of cars used in daily traffic.
FWIW, I'm from Finland, also with a history of high car purchase taxes, and the average in above data is almost 12 years. The oldest cars, however, have lower annual car tax (they had the highest tax at purchase time).
BTW I understand Denmark was about to lower the car purchase tax from 180 % to 100 % or so?
It is the same source for Denmark and Germany. Since US is not a part of EU, so I had to come with a different source.
As for your other argument - both reports count "vehicles in use" (ACEA) or "vehicles in operation" (US)
As for your other argument - both reports count "vehicles in use" (ACEA) or "vehicles in operation" (US)
Denmark and Germany are in EU, but that does not mean that statistics are made in the same way.
Also, the "vehicle in use" is not necessarily such a clear definition.
For instance, several of my colleagues own historical vehicles from 1960's and 1970's which are "museum registered", which here means that they must be at least 30 years old, can be used only on 30 days each year, and they are not subject to annual "MOT check" (but a different kind of check every 2-4 years).
Are they included in the "vehicle in use" statistic? I don't know. And I don't know what are the specific regulations for similar vehicles in other countries. Because the cars are 40-50 years old, even a not very big number of them would skew the statistics of average age of cars.
Also, the "vehicle in use" is not necessarily such a clear definition.
For instance, several of my colleagues own historical vehicles from 1960's and 1970's which are "museum registered", which here means that they must be at least 30 years old, can be used only on 30 days each year, and they are not subject to annual "MOT check" (but a different kind of check every 2-4 years).
Are they included in the "vehicle in use" statistic? I don't know. And I don't know what are the specific regulations for similar vehicles in other countries. Because the cars are 40-50 years old, even a not very big number of them would skew the statistics of average age of cars.
The max rate was lowered from 180 to 150 about 2-3 years ago.
It surprises me and doesn’t match my observations, but there at least one element to take into account: weather. There’s a reason the California car is treasured. Snow and the salt used to fight it is really corrosive to cars in Denmark.
BTW, this has changed with many brands about 15 years ago. Cars made until that tend to disappear from traffic due to corrosion. In around 2000, it became common to galvanize the steel bodies of cars.
Renault actually advertised this at the time: "will rust like a fish", with a picture of a car immersed in water. Seems to be legitimate: corrosion problems have become much more rare.
Renault actually advertised this at the time: "will rust like a fish", with a picture of a car immersed in water. Seems to be legitimate: corrosion problems have become much more rare.
>"(the 180% tax is absolutely real - I've paid it)"
This statement requires a bit more detail. It wasn't a flat tax rate, it was graduated, so below a certain price, there was a lower rate (105% IIRC), to incentivize smaller cheaper cars, and as a luxury tax on expensive vehicles.
As it is now, the rate is 85% below ~190K DKK and 150% of the value above that. The cutover has been steadily going up over a couple of years now.
So no, it has not ever been a flat 180%, as some people like to claim. It's still high, but there are tons of cars out there that don't hit the tax cutover point, even family cars.
Edit: And the rates are lower for motorcycles, hybrid cars and such.
This statement requires a bit more detail. It wasn't a flat tax rate, it was graduated, so below a certain price, there was a lower rate (105% IIRC), to incentivize smaller cheaper cars, and as a luxury tax on expensive vehicles.
As it is now, the rate is 85% below ~190K DKK and 150% of the value above that. The cutover has been steadily going up over a couple of years now.
So no, it has not ever been a flat 180%, as some people like to claim. It's still high, but there are tons of cars out there that don't hit the tax cutover point, even family cars.
Edit: And the rates are lower for motorcycles, hybrid cars and such.
> (the car tax is) paid for by people in suburbia who _have_ to own a car to survive.
I have been wondering for a little while now if the extreme libertarian position on private roads has been vindicated. I am not sure yet, but it seems possible where once it was ridiculous.
Starting with (let us say) World war two, cities and states built out substantial, publicly funded roads and road networks in order to connect up newly developed sub-urban centres that were designed for car owners. These new centres were affordable for the emerging middle classes, who migrated there en-masse. This co-incided with the baby-boom, which was partly possible due to cheap housing.
But this left the inner cities to die slow deaths where immigration was not high. (Side note: This is more true of American towns, in Australia I don't know that we had the dramatic changes seen in the highly industrialised centres of the USA.) So it possibly boosted the middle class at the expense of the lower class (?) and it created huge urban sprawl.
Would private roads, paid for collectively by the developers or residents of those suburbs, have helped to alleviate or reduce the problems outlined above?
I am spitballing here, and it is a little off-topic, but please indulge me!
I have been wondering for a little while now if the extreme libertarian position on private roads has been vindicated. I am not sure yet, but it seems possible where once it was ridiculous.
Starting with (let us say) World war two, cities and states built out substantial, publicly funded roads and road networks in order to connect up newly developed sub-urban centres that were designed for car owners. These new centres were affordable for the emerging middle classes, who migrated there en-masse. This co-incided with the baby-boom, which was partly possible due to cheap housing.
But this left the inner cities to die slow deaths where immigration was not high. (Side note: This is more true of American towns, in Australia I don't know that we had the dramatic changes seen in the highly industrialised centres of the USA.) So it possibly boosted the middle class at the expense of the lower class (?) and it created huge urban sprawl.
Would private roads, paid for collectively by the developers or residents of those suburbs, have helped to alleviate or reduce the problems outlined above?
I am spitballing here, and it is a little off-topic, but please indulge me!
Japan has a majority- privatized highway network, funding it requires tolls way higher than would be politically feasible in any western country. Gas and tolls make taking the bullet train cheaper for some distances if you're alone (the equation changes if you load up your family).
I live here and have to pay the tolls but I still prefer it from a "user pays" justice POV.
It doesn't have to be privatized though - Singapore is introducing a GPS-distance-based congestion charge on their roads ("ERP 2" if you want to Google it)
I live here and have to pay the tolls but I still prefer it from a "user pays" justice POV.
It doesn't have to be privatized though - Singapore is introducing a GPS-distance-based congestion charge on their roads ("ERP 2" if you want to Google it)
As a recent example, the cost to travel by train into Tokyo from Narita cost me about ¥800, but the tolls from driving cost about ¥2000. So, if you travel with 3+ people in a car, it's cheaper to drive, provided you already own a car.
Starting with (let us say) World war two, cities and states built out substantial, publicly funded roads and road networks in order to connect up newly developed sub-urban centres that were designed for car owners
In the United States, it was somewhat more complex than that. The highway network was and is primarily part of the nation's military defense infrastructure, so that weapons and personnel can be moved around in a time of crisis. (Something from Germany that impressed the U.S. during WWII.)
This is why the system is named after a general who was also a president ("The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System").
It's also the reason why the rails are not usually removed from abandoned railroads anymore: So they can be rehabbed in an emergency.
There's also a lot of social studies involved, including the baby boom.
Like all large human endeavors, it's messy.
[Edit to add:]
Would private roads, paid for collectively by the developers or residents of those suburbs, have helped to alleviate or reduce the problems outlined above?
One of the many contributing factors to the U.S. Civil War was the notion that the North wanted to shed its remaining privatized roads and federalize the whole thing, while the South wanted entirely private road systems.
In the United States, it was somewhat more complex than that. The highway network was and is primarily part of the nation's military defense infrastructure, so that weapons and personnel can be moved around in a time of crisis. (Something from Germany that impressed the U.S. during WWII.)
This is why the system is named after a general who was also a president ("The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System").
It's also the reason why the rails are not usually removed from abandoned railroads anymore: So they can be rehabbed in an emergency.
There's also a lot of social studies involved, including the baby boom.
Like all large human endeavors, it's messy.
[Edit to add:]
Would private roads, paid for collectively by the developers or residents of those suburbs, have helped to alleviate or reduce the problems outlined above?
One of the many contributing factors to the U.S. Civil War was the notion that the North wanted to shed its remaining privatized roads and federalize the whole thing, while the South wanted entirely private road systems.
> In the United States, it was somewhat more complex than that. The highway network was and is primarily part of the nation's military defense infrastructure
You are right. I am not contesting the Highway system, which actually still seems to be a good case for Federal public spending, both because it benefits the military and because it is inter-state.
My point is entirely regarding the roads that were built out from the dense urban cores to connect with sub-urbs, and the roads built to connect sub-urbs with one another, and those inside of suburbs too. If these were paid for by those who used them (and not inner-city dwellers) then perhaps urban sprawl would not have happened, and we would have saved ourselves from a whole host of externalities we are only discovering now.
You are right. I am not contesting the Highway system, which actually still seems to be a good case for Federal public spending, both because it benefits the military and because it is inter-state.
My point is entirely regarding the roads that were built out from the dense urban cores to connect with sub-urbs, and the roads built to connect sub-urbs with one another, and those inside of suburbs too. If these were paid for by those who used them (and not inner-city dwellers) then perhaps urban sprawl would not have happened, and we would have saved ourselves from a whole host of externalities we are only discovering now.
If these were paid for by those who used them
Well, they are. That's the 9/10th of a cent that drivers pay on each gallon of gas they purchase.
IMO, it should be closer to an even five cents, with half of it going to mass transit. But then I also drank milk and Pepsi mixed together when I was a kid, so I'm not exactly reliable.
Well, they are. That's the 9/10th of a cent that drivers pay on each gallon of gas they purchase.
IMO, it should be closer to an even five cents, with half of it going to mass transit. But then I also drank milk and Pepsi mixed together when I was a kid, so I'm not exactly reliable.
If you're speaking about the federal gas tax which goes to the Highway Trust Fund[1], it's currently $0.184 per gallon of petrol and $0.244 per gallon of diesel.
There are also state gasoline taxes, vehicle weight fees (for commercial interstate trucks) registration fees, and tolls[2].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund 2. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/us-transporta...
There are also state gasoline taxes, vehicle weight fees (for commercial interstate trucks) registration fees, and tolls[2].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund 2. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/us-transporta...
Does that cover the cost of the roads? Finnish fuel tax is 68 euro cents per litre (2,57€/2,95$ per gallon) and 2/3 of that covers the road maintenance. That is 328 times the amount of your fuel tax.
A lot of roads were build by private developers at the time of original suburban expansion, where later they get handed off to the city to maintain going forward.
All the Life cycle analysis I've seen (don't have the sources handy) have shown that the vast majority of an ICE's car's impact is from the fuel that is burned and not from production, usually around 80% driving and less than 20% production.
If you look at page 29 of this LCA by Audi, you can see that they show an ICE car's impact at about 20% manufacturing, 80% usage, and around 1% recycling at the end of life:
https://www.audi.com/content/dam/com/EN/corporate-responsibi...
https://www.audi.com/content/dam/com/EN/corporate-responsibi...
When the factories and steel production run on green power that 20% will drop very low.
The problem is that the fossil fuel lobby has been exceptionally successful in putting the transition back by 30 years. Had they expended the same energy pivoting to green power then we'd be having a totally different discussion now.
The problem is that the fossil fuel lobby has been exceptionally successful in putting the transition back by 30 years. Had they expended the same energy pivoting to green power then we'd be having a totally different discussion now.
Mmmhh, Audi is Volkswagen (and Audi's cars were involved as well in the emissions scandal), so I'm kind of sceptic about their credibility (meaning "let's not forget too quickly").
As they have as well a direct interest in saying "buying new/our cars isn't that harmful as you think", their doc makes me even more sceptic... :)
As they have as well a direct interest in saying "buying new/our cars isn't that harmful as you think", their doc makes me even more sceptic... :)
> If you're replacing cars every 3 years like an average westerner, given the age of cars I see on the road, you are doing extreme harm.
Those 3 year old cars aren't just scrapped, the used car market is much larger than the new car market.
Those 3 year old cars aren't just scrapped, the used car market is much larger than the new car market.
That would be fine except that cars release poison into the air, old cars especially. Eventually banning ICE cars is an essential public health measure.
That's a shame because there are some remarkable cars, both modern and classic, that will no longer be able to drive on the roads if we ban all ICE.
It would be the equivalent of banning steam engines, which although no longer in normal use, are still running as tourist attractions and remarkable pieces of engineering that are fantastic to see and experience.
It would be the equivalent of banning steam engines, which although no longer in normal use, are still running as tourist attractions and remarkable pieces of engineering that are fantastic to see and experience.
No real need to ban old cars, they tend to quickly phase out on their own. Heck, the state I live in has uninstalled all the expensive dyno equipment they used for pre-OBD2 cars because there just aren't enough left on the road to justify maintaining the test. They still sniff, because that's cheap, but not on a dyno.
Given that we still allow horses and Model T's on the roads (aside from freeways, due to inability of century-old cars to maintain that speed), I can't imagine why we'd bother banning them. The nostalgia is nice and their impact is negligible.
Given that we still allow horses and Model T's on the roads (aside from freeways, due to inability of century-old cars to maintain that speed), I can't imagine why we'd bother banning them. The nostalgia is nice and their impact is negligible.
I think this policy would ban new sales, not outright ban all old cars.
Both policies exist actually. For instance old cars and motorcycles are getting banned in Paris (outside of weekends IIRC). Even if as the grandparent points out making a new car generates a lot of pollution at least it would reduce the more local problem of having a heavy smog on windless days (and all the health issues that go along with it).
Banning old cars from inner-city driving is a nessesity. With how densly cities pack both cars and buildings, suspended particulate matter is a serious public health risk. But we can still allow them everywhere else where we aren't already struggling with keeping particluate levels at a reasonably safe level.
Ya I'm visiting my mum in a rural area and I went for a jog today and I couldn't believe how bad the exhausts were that drove past me. I don't think they'd pass the emissions test in the city I'm from.
The irony is that the state that loves to pat itself on its back for being so environmentally conscious is also that last state where you could buy leaded gas in the U.S.
California: 1992.
California: 1992.
>If you're replacing cars every 3 years like an average westerner, given the age of cars I see on the road, you are doing extreme harm.
Do you have any sources for this claim? I think I only know of a single person who changes cars in 3 years due to leases and only did it once.
According to the US government the average age is 11, almost 12 years.[1]
[1]https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-truc...
Do you have any sources for this claim? I think I only know of a single person who changes cars in 3 years due to leases and only did it once.
According to the US government the average age is 11, almost 12 years.[1]
[1]https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-truc...
This is why I consider my 1990 Volvo a comparatively environmentally friendly car. Very reliable and much cheaper to maintain and repair than a new electronics laden alternative.
However, it's not great for local air quality.
If you live in the countryside and rarely visit towns, it's a reasonable choice. If you regularly drive slowly through a city, it's awful!
If you live in the countryside and rarely visit towns, it's a reasonable choice. If you regularly drive slowly through a city, it's awful!
My 1995 Volvo 940 Wagon (Estate for you EU?) is probably the best car I've ever purchased. It's comfortable, reliable, easy to work on and doesn't drink that much gasoline. I've had new cars, old cars, fast cars, slow cars, and the Volvo is seriously my favorite. Purchased for $800 a year ago and immediately drove across the USA with it. Only issue was a short in the tail lights. :) Maybe I shouldn't be sharing this information.. I don't need them to become expensive!
But you do. An increase in price means your car's resale value will go up.
Ironically, a big reason people buy new cars is because their old one failed emissions screening, and wasn't economical to repair.
I always wonder at this. I've seen those expensive repair bills and they're usually expensive relative to the value of the car to be repaired, but they're cheap relative to the cost of a brand new car.
You can get a loan for a new car, you can't get a loan for repairs. If you manage money well this is rarely a problem, but if you don't then you have no savings to pay for the repairs. The other problem with repair is what else is wrong and what will that cost to repair.
I've been told that there are people who trade their cars in when the tires are worn out - it kicks the payments down the road a month (they have to budget next month lower than this month, but it doesn't use cash they don't have) Remember, nearly anyone can get a car loan no matter how bad their credit is. Even a credit card has higher standards. Since we are talking about people who are bad with money it is at least believable.
I've been told that there are people who trade their cars in when the tires are worn out - it kicks the payments down the road a month (they have to budget next month lower than this month, but it doesn't use cash they don't have) Remember, nearly anyone can get a car loan no matter how bad their credit is. Even a credit card has higher standards. Since we are talking about people who are bad with money it is at least believable.
My experience has been exactly the opposite. Everyone I know who trades out cars every year or so does it because they want the latest and greatest, or just something new and different, not because they can't afford to repair it. The people I know who have more limited means tend to drive their cars until the wheels fall off, and they are pretty familiar with their mechanic. I'm a little too impatient for that myself, I have a fairly low threshold of 'how many is too many repairs' before I dump a car and get something with less hassle.
Just went through this calculating a few months ago.
Had a 14 year old car... 225k miles on it... a couple years ago had put in $1k or so, but the last 18 month had put in less than $500 in repairs (tires, oil changes, some other issues).
However, there was an oil leak, and some damage to front-end suspension. Oil leak had been going on for a while, but getting worse. Finding it would have meant taking the engine apart, and the front-end stuff was also expensive. Even without the engine leak, I was looking at probably $1500 to get this to pass inspection this year, and... there's no guarantee that all the fixes wouldn't have left me with something with a broken transmission that needed an overhaul or replacement. Fixing it all would probably have been north of $3k to feel good that it would be road worthy for at least another few years.
As much as a I hate change, I bit the bullet, and got a 'newer' car for $11k. 'used' but still relatively new (2016) and it's far more fuel efficient - getting around 40mpg vs the 25 I was getting before. The fuel efficiency won't totally make up for the entire diff in fixing vs replacing, but I have something that's more modern, more comfortable, gets better mileage and better safety features. The 'brand new car' comparison - yeah, but loads of people are fine getting a 'lightly used' car vs 'brand new'.
A friend went through similar decision within 10 days of my process, and he ended up getting a lightly used car (2017?) but it was $21k - I just can't bring myself to pay that type of money for a car right now. I was looking sub $10k; my wife pushed me to go a little higher.
Had a 14 year old car... 225k miles on it... a couple years ago had put in $1k or so, but the last 18 month had put in less than $500 in repairs (tires, oil changes, some other issues).
However, there was an oil leak, and some damage to front-end suspension. Oil leak had been going on for a while, but getting worse. Finding it would have meant taking the engine apart, and the front-end stuff was also expensive. Even without the engine leak, I was looking at probably $1500 to get this to pass inspection this year, and... there's no guarantee that all the fixes wouldn't have left me with something with a broken transmission that needed an overhaul or replacement. Fixing it all would probably have been north of $3k to feel good that it would be road worthy for at least another few years.
As much as a I hate change, I bit the bullet, and got a 'newer' car for $11k. 'used' but still relatively new (2016) and it's far more fuel efficient - getting around 40mpg vs the 25 I was getting before. The fuel efficiency won't totally make up for the entire diff in fixing vs replacing, but I have something that's more modern, more comfortable, gets better mileage and better safety features. The 'brand new car' comparison - yeah, but loads of people are fine getting a 'lightly used' car vs 'brand new'.
A friend went through similar decision within 10 days of my process, and he ended up getting a lightly used car (2017?) but it was $21k - I just can't bring myself to pay that type of money for a car right now. I was looking sub $10k; my wife pushed me to go a little higher.
[deleted]
Which is why the "Cash for Clunkers" program was a giant environmental disaster. There's no way the fuel efficiency gains made up for the fuel burned manufacturing the car.
I think the motivation was reducing pollution. A small minority of badly running cars emit most of the particulate and nitrogen oxide pollution. In certain areas like Los Angeles in the 1980s, smog (caused by nitrogen oxides) was killing people, and removing a few clunkers made a significant difference.
I recall the motivation was improving fuel efficiency.
"intended to provide economic incentives to U.S. residents to purchase a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle when trading in a less fuel-efficient vehicle."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System
"intended to provide economic incentives to U.S. residents to purchase a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle when trading in a less fuel-efficient vehicle."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System
I think part of the motivation was preventing open rebellion by a hurting voter base. Those were bad years.
I think all the bastardized carbon accounting, market based solutions are on average quite bad.
I'm curious, do you think the whole idea of a market-based solution is bad, or do you just think that actual real-world implementations have been lacking so far?
I mean, it seems to me that if you tax emissions strongly and uniformly enough, then at some point it has to have an impact. I think existing schemes have just been pretty weak.
I agree that carbon taxes can potentially hit poor and middle class folks unfairly hard, but this can easily be solved via carbon dividend type schemes.
I'm curious, do you think the whole idea of a market-based solution is bad, or do you just think that actual real-world implementations have been lacking so far?
I mean, it seems to me that if you tax emissions strongly and uniformly enough, then at some point it has to have an impact. I think existing schemes have just been pretty weak.
I agree that carbon taxes can potentially hit poor and middle class folks unfairly hard, but this can easily be solved via carbon dividend type schemes.
> it seems to me that if you tax emissions strongly and uniformly enough, then at some point it has to have an impact.
One way to look at that is that you're saying any market-based solution strong enough to be effective is indistinguishable from an outright ban.
We could, for example, discourage smoking by putting a $500 tax on each pack of cigarettes. But at that point, you may as well stop pretending and ban it outright.
Another way to look at it is that bans are fair because they apply to all people equally. Taxes unfairly punish the poor who have less discretionary income. (A $100 tax on cigarettes would drive most of the working and middle classes to quit, but there are certainly a number of rich folks who would keep on lighting up because $100 means little to them.)
One way to look at that is that you're saying any market-based solution strong enough to be effective is indistinguishable from an outright ban.
We could, for example, discourage smoking by putting a $500 tax on each pack of cigarettes. But at that point, you may as well stop pretending and ban it outright.
Another way to look at it is that bans are fair because they apply to all people equally. Taxes unfairly punish the poor who have less discretionary income. (A $100 tax on cigarettes would drive most of the working and middle classes to quit, but there are certainly a number of rich folks who would keep on lighting up because $100 means little to them.)
> One way to look at that is that you're saying any market-based solution strong enough to be effective is indistinguishable from an outright ban.
I'm not sure I agree. I could easily imagine a range of carbon taxes applied to vehicles where most, but not all, users would switch to electric. There could easily be people who like taking long trips far from major roads and are willing to pay a large premium to do so.
> Another way to look at it is that bans are fair because they apply to all people equally. Taxes unfairly punish the poor who have less discretionary income. (A $100 tax on cigarettes would drive most of the working and middle classes to quit, but there are certainly a number of rich folks who would keep on lighting up because $100 means little to them.)
That's a fair point, but I'm not sure your example is all that compelling. If a small number of rich people are willing to pay $100 in extra taxes to smoke a cigarette, is that really so bad?
I'm not sure I agree. I could easily imagine a range of carbon taxes applied to vehicles where most, but not all, users would switch to electric. There could easily be people who like taking long trips far from major roads and are willing to pay a large premium to do so.
> Another way to look at it is that bans are fair because they apply to all people equally. Taxes unfairly punish the poor who have less discretionary income. (A $100 tax on cigarettes would drive most of the working and middle classes to quit, but there are certainly a number of rich folks who would keep on lighting up because $100 means little to them.)
That's a fair point, but I'm not sure your example is all that compelling. If a small number of rich people are willing to pay $100 in extra taxes to smoke a cigarette, is that really so bad?
The advantage of a ban is that you can also eliminate production and importation. If you have a legal path, that path will be diverted into the black market.
Black market cigarettes, sure. But black market cars? Cars are already individually registered and tracked by the states. You can’t just magic up an illegally imported car and get away with driving it for very long.
> If a small number of rich people are willing to pay $100 in extra taxes to smoke a cigarette, is that really so bad?
What is the rational to "letting" the rich smoke (replace with activity "X" if desired), but not everyone else?
For the most part, that is what the policy effectively ends up doing, and so enacting it becomes to an implicit approval of that result.
It's obviously not the only way of looking at the situation, but I think it has some merit. Interesting to think about, at least.
What is the rational to "letting" the rich smoke (replace with activity "X" if desired), but not everyone else?
For the most part, that is what the policy effectively ends up doing, and so enacting it becomes to an implicit approval of that result.
It's obviously not the only way of looking at the situation, but I think it has some merit. Interesting to think about, at least.
Smoking a cigarette harms society. Rich people can afford to compensate society for the harm they inflict, so that society comes out ahead.
But do they? Or does their platinum-level insurance pay for the new lungs, which really comes out of the working-persons' pocket?
> equally
Implies everyone is in the same situation. This is never true. For example, in WW2 we had gas rationing. You got a fixed amount of gas, regardless of how much driving you needed to do. The result was a black market in gas, where those who didn't need all their alotment sold it to those who did (at black market prices, of course, since this was illegal).
Implies everyone is in the same situation. This is never true. For example, in WW2 we had gas rationing. You got a fixed amount of gas, regardless of how much driving you needed to do. The result was a black market in gas, where those who didn't need all their alotment sold it to those who did (at black market prices, of course, since this was illegal).
This is a good moral question. My impression is that some people today, especially here on HN, feel very uncomfortable taking any moral stance and instead have a worldview that says what is right is determined entirely by what the market produces. Basically capitalism is God.
I like capitalism, but I view it as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Instead of evaluating our moral against what capitalism produces, we should evaluate capitalism by how well it supports our morals.
From that perspective, yeah, I think it is kind of bad. If we are placing a high tax on cigarettes because our society has made a moral choice that cigarettes are bad and people who smoke are bad, then I think that moral choice should apply equally to all people regardless of wealth. My moral code states that power does not excuse sins.
On the other hand, if the tax is a pragmatic one to, say, help pay for universal healthcare and offset the higher medical costs incurred by smokers, then the tax is a reasonable approach.
In reality, the tax/law is probably a combination of the two goals, which is why I think a tax is kind of bad but kind of OK.
I like capitalism, but I view it as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Instead of evaluating our moral against what capitalism produces, we should evaluate capitalism by how well it supports our morals.
From that perspective, yeah, I think it is kind of bad. If we are placing a high tax on cigarettes because our society has made a moral choice that cigarettes are bad and people who smoke are bad, then I think that moral choice should apply equally to all people regardless of wealth. My moral code states that power does not excuse sins.
On the other hand, if the tax is a pragmatic one to, say, help pay for universal healthcare and offset the higher medical costs incurred by smokers, then the tax is a reasonable approach.
In reality, the tax/law is probably a combination of the two goals, which is why I think a tax is kind of bad but kind of OK.
Regressive taxes are problematic, sure. But never mind any decision on moral grounds. Smoking, for example, has a high cost to society. We seek to reduce it to lower that cost.
You are missing one big advantage of market based solutions. They raise revenue.
For every dollar that is raised from taxing gasoline, is another dollar that can be used paying for social programs or whatever.
For every dollar that is raised from taxing gasoline, is another dollar that can be used paying for social programs or whatever.
This can also be a strong dis-advantage because they incentivize abuse.
Look, for example, at civil seizure in the US. Police agencies are highly incentivized to do it since they get to keep the money, even when doing so is unjust.
In practice, tax-based solutions have pros and cons and you need to think about the incentives and unintended consequences that they lead to on both the enforcement and citizen sides. Law-based solutions do too, of course.
Look, for example, at civil seizure in the US. Police agencies are highly incentivized to do it since they get to keep the money, even when doing so is unjust.
In practice, tax-based solutions have pros and cons and you need to think about the incentives and unintended consequences that they lead to on both the enforcement and citizen sides. Law-based solutions do too, of course.
No it would massively increase smuggling / crime as Americas experiment with prohibition showed.
"I'm curious, do you think the whole idea of a market-based solution is bad, or do you just think that actual real-world implementations have been lacking so far?'
My theory is that the people push for market based solutions the most are usually the same people that are against regulations and taxes so whatever they come up with will usually be very weak. They certainly won't support taxation of carbon emissions to the degree that's necessary for real behavior.
My theory is that the people push for market based solutions the most are usually the same people that are against regulations and taxes so whatever they come up with will usually be very weak. They certainly won't support taxation of carbon emissions to the degree that's necessary for real behavior.
I'm one of those people that push for market based solutions. I also support taxation to the degree that it is effective. So your theory is not supported by evidence.
I also support the idea of reducing other taxes in concert, so the tax is revenue neutral.
I also support the idea of reducing other taxes in concert, so the tax is revenue neutral.
> I think existing schemes have just been pretty weak.
Most existing schemes seem to have been cleverly designed to avoid hitting certain industries with large enough lobbying power.
Taxing/banning/regulating specific polluters rather than pollution itself is just ripe for regulatory capture.
Most existing schemes seem to have been cleverly designed to avoid hitting certain industries with large enough lobbying power.
Taxing/banning/regulating specific polluters rather than pollution itself is just ripe for regulatory capture.
It sounds like he's arguing not that the policies have been lacking oomph, but that the policies could never really hope to handle all the nuance. If you could only set up the incentives right, you'd get the right outcome, but maybe that's a perilous & incredibly difficult task.
I don't think the whole idea is bad. Market based public housing schemes can be quite good, for example.
I do think that making stuff more market based to avoid "picking winners" is probably a bad idea. We know what the winner is here, more or less. The winner is non-ICE vehicles. We should be backing that, not 25% more efficient engines.
I do think that making stuff more market based to avoid "picking winners" is probably a bad idea. We know what the winner is here, more or less. The winner is non-ICE vehicles. We should be backing that, not 25% more efficient engines.
>There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of an outright ban. Ban ICEs. Ban commercial fishing. It worked for CFCs and market hunting. In retrospect, no one wishes we had split hairs with a complicated policy.
Bans are just as messy because what is and isn't subject to he ban results in just as much hair splitting as a complicated policy in the first place.
When we "ban" things there are almost always trade-offs. It makes sense to allow market hunting in some cases (wild hogs, whitetail deer in some areas). There's a case to be made for allowing the use of lead paint in some industrial applications.
Bans are just as messy because what is and isn't subject to he ban results in just as much hair splitting as a complicated policy in the first place.
When we "ban" things there are almost always trade-offs. It makes sense to allow market hunting in some cases (wild hogs, whitetail deer in some areas). There's a case to be made for allowing the use of lead paint in some industrial applications.
> Switching from a 10yr old ICE hatchback to a new one can easily save you $500 pa. Going from a new "efficient" ICE to an electric will save you a fraction of that.
Not true. From personal experience driving an electric costs one fifth the cost of fuel per km. That's an enormous saving.
Not true. From personal experience driving an electric costs one fifth the cost of fuel per km. That's an enormous saving.
A Prius gets around 55 mpg, which with gas at 3.25/gal and electricity at 0.11/kWh means a Chevy Bolt, for example, costs just a little over half what the electric does, per mile. The electric also has a significantly higher capital cost and depreciation rate. I wouldn't be at all surprised if over, say, five years, the Prius has a cheaper TCO.
This is sensitive to local costs of both fuel and electricity. In my part of Washington state I last paid $3.43 per gallon of gasoline but residential electricity is about 6.5 cents per kWh.
It looks like in Denmark electricity prices were 0.30 EUR (0.35 USD) per kWh in the second half of 2017, while gasoline prices are currently 12.26 DKK per liter (7.15 USD per US gallon).
It looks like in Denmark electricity prices were 0.30 EUR (0.35 USD) per kWh in the second half of 2017, while gasoline prices are currently 12.26 DKK per liter (7.15 USD per US gallon).
Definitely it varies by location. The US national average price for fuel right now is 2.90, and the average cost per kWh for electricity is 0.12. Makes the running cost for the ICE vs EV even closer than my original numbers.
I kinda leave the European prices out of the discussion because what they pay tends to be extremely distorted by local taxes.
Based on a quick bit of TCO research, best I can tell is that without subsidies, EVs tend to have a TCO significantly higher than an efficient ICE vehicle. The market is young, obviously, and lots of EVs are aimed at people willing to pay a premium. A Model S, for example, has a TCO over five years of nearly 70 grand (!!). But, a Chevy Spark EV has a TCO of more like 20 grand, which is really showing how cheap they were due to GM dumping them at a loss and the big tax credit. A Prius is around 30K or so, for comparison.
I want an electric, and will get one as soon as there is something in the right price range with the characteristics I'm interested in (sporty, decent looking, sufficient range, reliable, good ergonomics). The Model 3 isn't too bad but it's more than I want to spend on a first-run car, and I won't buy any car with a single touchscreen as the sole interface.
I kinda leave the European prices out of the discussion because what they pay tends to be extremely distorted by local taxes.
Based on a quick bit of TCO research, best I can tell is that without subsidies, EVs tend to have a TCO significantly higher than an efficient ICE vehicle. The market is young, obviously, and lots of EVs are aimed at people willing to pay a premium. A Model S, for example, has a TCO over five years of nearly 70 grand (!!). But, a Chevy Spark EV has a TCO of more like 20 grand, which is really showing how cheap they were due to GM dumping them at a loss and the big tax credit. A Prius is around 30K or so, for comparison.
I want an electric, and will get one as soon as there is something in the right price range with the characteristics I'm interested in (sporty, decent looking, sufficient range, reliable, good ergonomics). The Model 3 isn't too bad but it's more than I want to spend on a first-run car, and I won't buy any car with a single touchscreen as the sole interface.
Sure, I was just adding some more data points about locales where the payback time for going electric is shorter (Washington) and longer (Denmark).
I don't buy new cars and I don't drive very much in the first place. It's not worth it for me to go electric at present, despite access to cheap electricity and relatively high gas prices here. I'm hopeful that by the time my 2007 Camry is at end-of-life there will be affordable, reliable used EVs.
I don't buy new cars and I don't drive very much in the first place. It's not worth it for me to go electric at present, despite access to cheap electricity and relatively high gas prices here. I'm hopeful that by the time my 2007 Camry is at end-of-life there will be affordable, reliable used EVs.
>Vehicles hit junkyards faster
not really. They just migrate faster to Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.
not really. They just migrate faster to Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.
>There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of an outright ban. Ban ICEs.
Do this and a massive chunk of the population will die shortly after. There is no alternative to farm and transport food at the scale required for the modern population.
Banning CFCs isn't even comparable because all of modern civilization wasn't built on them like it has been with the portable energy enabled by ICE.
There is no viable electric-only solution for the freight rail network, the air freight network, or even the road freight network.
Do this and a massive chunk of the population will die shortly after. There is no alternative to farm and transport food at the scale required for the modern population.
Banning CFCs isn't even comparable because all of modern civilization wasn't built on them like it has been with the portable energy enabled by ICE.
There is no viable electric-only solution for the freight rail network, the air freight network, or even the road freight network.
A side effect, intended or not, is that poorer people who can not afford new and more efficient cars end up paying more for the fuel and more for the tax.
In my country (New Zealand) the fuel tax goes into the infrastructure fund which keeps roads maintained. It also funds public transport.
We’re going go have to come up with creative solutions when most vehicles are electric.
We’re going go have to come up with creative solutions when most vehicles are electric.
In NZ Diesel vehicles have to pay a tax per km driven but it is not paid at the pump. You buy a sticker that says what odometer reading you have paid up to. Get a fine if odometer reads higher than sticker.
Same mechanism can work for electric cars
Same mechanism can work for electric cars
In fact electric cars did have to do that until a few years ago when the mileage tax was removed to encourage electric cars
Bans are economically inefficient because they allow for zero flexibility. There will always be cases where an ICE is more appropriate, and it's very costly to try to lobby for an exemption.
A carbon emissions tax is the right solution. Just keep raising it until one gets the effect wanted - a wholesale switch to electric.
A carbon emissions tax is the right solution. Just keep raising it until one gets the effect wanted - a wholesale switch to electric.
People especially here constantly rail against Europe, specifically their start-up scene, against taxes, against regulations, etc. At the same time, our cities are unlivable, inaccessible, crowded, our infrastructure is falling apart, a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor causing increases in homelessness in cities and opiod addiction in rural areas. Western Europe isn't utopia, but in many areas, their policies are actually in the public interest and raise most people up[0].
[0] Perhaps not natives, but that's another story.
[0] Perhaps not natives, but that's another story.
Our cities are "crowded" and "unlivable"?
If they're so unlivable then why do so many people want to live there that they're crowded? Especially when the country is full of suburbs...suburbs, where, in fact, most people live.
Our cities are way less dense than many European cities. In fact they are way less dense than they used to be in many cases.
If they're so unlivable then why do so many people want to live there that they're crowded? Especially when the country is full of suburbs...suburbs, where, in fact, most people live.
Our cities are way less dense than many European cities. In fact they are way less dense than they used to be in many cases.
> "People especially here constantly rail against Europe"
> "our cities"
Where is "here" and "our cities"?
> "our cities"
Where is "here" and "our cities"?
People love to cherry pick a statistic from one European city, and ask why all of the American empire can't be like that.
/s/public transportation/health care/cars/etc.
/s/public transportation/health care/cars/etc.
Cherry picking isn't really needed, infrastructure and health care are a disaster here.
edit: For some perspective, there are 240,000 water main breaks every year in the US, wasting over 2 trillion gallons of treated drinking water.
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/drinking-w...
edit: For some perspective, there are 240,000 water main breaks every year in the US, wasting over 2 trillion gallons of treated drinking water.
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/drinking-w...
These statistics are only possible in a nation that has over 240,000 water mains (or do some break more than once a year?)
A smaller nation can choose a solution that works better at smaller scales, but doesn't scare well - because they don't need it to scale much. A larger empire has fewer options.
A smaller nation can choose a solution that works better at smaller scales, but doesn't scare well - because they don't need it to scale much. A larger empire has fewer options.
Europe has far more people than the US, I don't know what you're on about.
Most likely US
>a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor causing increases in homelessness in cities
For starters, I'd be curious to see a source on whether or not the United States even has a significantly increasing number of homeless per-capita.
Secondly, even if that is the case, the causal relationship between the wealth gap and homelessness would be speculative at best.
For starters, I'd be curious to see a source on whether or not the United States even has a significantly increasing number of homeless per-capita.
Secondly, even if that is the case, the causal relationship between the wealth gap and homelessness would be speculative at best.
Let's see what happens when you hit rock bottom in The Netherlands, so zero wealth and zero income. I'm assuming you're about 30, single, and have no kids.
First, there is social housing available at a price between €335 and €710. True, you may have to wait a little for a house, but if it's a critical situation you will get priority. As you have no income, you will also get rent subsidies. After those, you'll pay roughly €250 / month for rent.
Second, healthcare. Health insurance is mandatory and covers practically everything, so you'll still have this. No need to worry about healthcare costs. You still have to pay for it. With a €385 / year copay, it costs you €94 / month. With a €885 copay, it'll cost you €75 / month. As you have no income, the government will subsidize your healthcare for €94 / month. Net cost: between €0 and €-20 / month. Yes, you can actually profit on healthcare.
Third, welfare. About €930 / month.
Let's look at some basic needs: heating is about €75, electricity is €28, water is €10, a 50/5 internet connection is €25, a basic 100 minutes, 100 sms, 1 GB internet mobile phone connection is about €7. There are some municipal taxes, but you don't have to pay any of them because you have no income.
This leaves you with about €535 a month for food, clothing, and all your other stuff. Note that I intentionally did not mention any car costs: you don't need it for grocery shopping, and you don't need it for a job, so any use is only incidental. If you even want to keep it, the main cost would be insurance, and that starts at €20 / month.
So let's look at the original question: is there a causal relationship between the wealth gap and homelessness? I'd say there is, because when rich people pay slightly higher taxes, literally nobody has to be homeless because the government will pay for their safety net. So how many people depend on this? Roughly 6%. This means that, on average, every working person has to pay €75 / month in taxes for a guaranteed safety net, including housing and healthcare. If you consider the amount of taxes you pay, that's not such a bad deal.
First, there is social housing available at a price between €335 and €710. True, you may have to wait a little for a house, but if it's a critical situation you will get priority. As you have no income, you will also get rent subsidies. After those, you'll pay roughly €250 / month for rent.
Second, healthcare. Health insurance is mandatory and covers practically everything, so you'll still have this. No need to worry about healthcare costs. You still have to pay for it. With a €385 / year copay, it costs you €94 / month. With a €885 copay, it'll cost you €75 / month. As you have no income, the government will subsidize your healthcare for €94 / month. Net cost: between €0 and €-20 / month. Yes, you can actually profit on healthcare.
Third, welfare. About €930 / month.
Let's look at some basic needs: heating is about €75, electricity is €28, water is €10, a 50/5 internet connection is €25, a basic 100 minutes, 100 sms, 1 GB internet mobile phone connection is about €7. There are some municipal taxes, but you don't have to pay any of them because you have no income.
This leaves you with about €535 a month for food, clothing, and all your other stuff. Note that I intentionally did not mention any car costs: you don't need it for grocery shopping, and you don't need it for a job, so any use is only incidental. If you even want to keep it, the main cost would be insurance, and that starts at €20 / month.
So let's look at the original question: is there a causal relationship between the wealth gap and homelessness? I'd say there is, because when rich people pay slightly higher taxes, literally nobody has to be homeless because the government will pay for their safety net. So how many people depend on this? Roughly 6%. This means that, on average, every working person has to pay €75 / month in taxes for a guaranteed safety net, including housing and healthcare. If you consider the amount of taxes you pay, that's not such a bad deal.
> Perhaps not natives, but that's another story
At the risk of inviting some xenophobic and/or racist commentary, I'll bite. What's your story?
At the risk of inviting some xenophobic and/or racist commentary, I'll bite. What's your story?
While the promise sounds great, it's important to note that no law has actually been passed.
Also, incentives to increase sales of electric vehicles are yet to be announced.
Denmark's Scandinavian neighbour Norway is on the other side of the spectrum. Heavy subsidisation has caused every 2nd (!) car sold to be electric (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-norway-autos/...).
Also, incentives to increase sales of electric vehicles are yet to be announced.
Denmark's Scandinavian neighbour Norway is on the other side of the spectrum. Heavy subsidisation has caused every 2nd (!) car sold to be electric (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-norway-autos/...).
Isn't it ironic that most of welfare and subsidies actually come from the oil. Stuff like 25km of under sea tunnel leading to a town with sub 2k population is quite a common sight there.
While Norway is an amazing country in many aspects, the amount of oil owned by a state company puts it in a rather unique position.
While Norway is an amazing country in many aspects, the amount of oil owned by a state company puts it in a rather unique position.
> Stuff like 25km of under sea tunnel leading to a town with sub 2k population is quite a common sight there.
It's not really common. They only have one tunnel that's 24.5km ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tunnels_in_Norway ) and it's not under the sea. The remaining are 10km or shorter.
The longest undersea tunnel is 8.9km and it goes to a city with a population of 8,215. It goes to an entire island though, so a few more people than that benefit.
Your overall point is completely right, but might as well get the facts straight, so people can compare and don't recite wrong information.
Norway doesn't actually show up much on the list of longest tunnels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_tunnels
It's not really common. They only have one tunnel that's 24.5km ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tunnels_in_Norway ) and it's not under the sea. The remaining are 10km or shorter.
The longest undersea tunnel is 8.9km and it goes to a city with a population of 8,215. It goes to an entire island though, so a few more people than that benefit.
Your overall point is completely right, but might as well get the facts straight, so people can compare and don't recite wrong information.
Norway doesn't actually show up much on the list of longest tunnels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_tunnels
Aren't they building the Coastal Highway at a cost of $47B that will include a few tunnels and a few more bridges?
Is it ironic?
Creating a national investment fund from the oil bonus seems a far better choice than continuing as usual, or using it to pay for tax cuts (1980's UK).
When the oil runs out, or is considered too damaging to use any more, the infrastructure will still be there, and so will the fund.
Creating a national investment fund from the oil bonus seems a far better choice than continuing as usual, or using it to pay for tax cuts (1980's UK).
When the oil runs out, or is considered too damaging to use any more, the infrastructure will still be there, and so will the fund.
This is a great article explaining how an Iraqi was largely the mind behind putting all the oil money in a state-owned fund as to avoid the damage that oil usually had done to any country that had discovered it.
https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...
https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...
Putting all oil money into state owned fund also kinda helps the people ruling the state :)
[deleted]
Fair point, but I have a lot of respect for how Norway manages it's oil money..
State wealthfare fund and research in various techniques to minimize pollution from oil production.
State wealthfare fund and research in various techniques to minimize pollution from oil production.
Incentives are to be anounced next week. If they follow the so called “climate panel” they will be horrible.. a Tesla will actually go up in price..
Tesla is already selling all the cars they can make. If the goal is a higher percentage of electric cars on the road, subsidizing them won't help. The more important thing is to incentivize other manufacturers to produce more electric vehicles.
To play devils advocate: electric cars are a niche, Sure Tesla can sell out. The niche is large enough - for more players, but ultimately electric cars will top out at a small fraction of the total vehicle market.
Of course this is predicting the future. Nobody does that well. In a few years we will have facts, but that doesn't say much about the future beyond that.
Of course this is predicting the future. Nobody does that well. In a few years we will have facts, but that doesn't say much about the future beyond that.
That's the future that governments are trying to avoid by subsidizing electric cars and/or restricting gasoline-powered cars.
There are some disadvantages of electric cars which may or may not be solvable.
>majewsky
- Charge times, charging with higher voltage decreases the battery capacity.
- Some cities may require major grid upgrades, peaks consumption may rise significantly
- A lot of power still comes from coal which doesn't solve much as emissions go.
Overall it all revolves, around energy density, inability to store electricity efficiently, charge times and battery degradation (lots of them are not produced in very renewable manner)
Overall it all revolves, around energy density, inability to store electricity efficiently, charge times and battery degradation (lots of them are not produced in very renewable manner)
Sure, some ICE may remain around for special uses, but I guess the vast majority of people will be fine w an electric car. (Especially in 2030)
By coincidence, I'll be picking up a brand new (ICE) vehicle from my dealer in just over 12 hours' time.
The electric version of the vehicle I'm buying costs just a shade over twice as much(!) as the ICE version.
I'm not fine paying more than twice as much for a product that in many respects is "less good".
The electric version of the vehicle I'm buying costs just a shade over twice as much(!) as the ICE version.
I'm not fine paying more than twice as much for a product that in many respects is "less good".
2x cost for electric is not typical. The average cost premium is more like 10-15k (and the US government will allow you a $7,500 tax credit for the electric).
Of course the top-selling electric vehicles (Tesla and Leaf) don't have a direct ICE equivalent so it's tough to compare...
Of course the top-selling electric vehicles (Tesla and Leaf) don't have a direct ICE equivalent so it's tough to compare...
Converted to USD: I'll be paying $12.5k including taxes tomorrow for the new ICE vehicle, the electric version is priced at $26.5k
The salesman showed me the electric version. They are cool. For my usage pattern it would even be a good fit 90% of the time, lots of short trips from home.
The problem is that 10% of the time I'm on the road, and that's a bit of a deal-breaker.
The absolute killer is, of course, paying an additional $14k for a vehicle where the resale value will fall far more rapidly than the much cheaper ICE equivalent.
The salesman showed me the electric version. They are cool. For my usage pattern it would even be a good fit 90% of the time, lots of short trips from home.
The problem is that 10% of the time I'm on the road, and that's a bit of a deal-breaker.
The absolute killer is, of course, paying an additional $14k for a vehicle where the resale value will fall far more rapidly than the much cheaper ICE equivalent.
Good point, but how much of that is the manufacturer pre-compensating itself for all the extra maintenance that it won't sell you?
There's a healthy open market in servicing ICE vehicles.
I can take pretty much any kind of car to my local independent place - which happens to be less than 1/2 mile away - and they'll fix it for me. They'll stick to using original manufacturers parts unless I instruct them not to. If they think something ought to be covered by warranty and so ought to be looked at via the original manufacturer's servicing network, they'll decline the job and tell me why.
It's hard to imagine a system with less lock-in!
I can take pretty much any kind of car to my local independent place - which happens to be less than 1/2 mile away - and they'll fix it for me. They'll stick to using original manufacturers parts unless I instruct them not to. If they think something ought to be covered by warranty and so ought to be looked at via the original manufacturer's servicing network, they'll decline the job and tell me why.
It's hard to imagine a system with less lock-in!
Unlike Tesla, the dealer performs the maintenance for other cars. Or maybe a 3rd party shop. Do they have a kickback agreement with the manufacturer?
How much does Tesla pre-compensate for the maintenance they won't authorize others to do?
How much does Tesla pre-compensate for the maintenance they won't authorize others to do?
Which is why governments that believe that the negative externalities of fossil fuels are worse than those disadvantages use legislation to tip the scales in the other direction.
Such as?
If you're saying "range", I counter that most trips (e.g. most commutes) are well within the range limits of current BEVs.
If you're saying "range", I counter that most trips (e.g. most commutes) are well within the range limits of current BEVs.
Such as commuting an hour to work, that may turn out to be two, in Toronto's gridlock, during a cold wave of -45c.
"Most trips" doesn't work, the EV proponents want a ban on all ICE cars. Which would force part of the population to buy a truck and commute with it.
"Most trips" doesn't work, the EV proponents want a ban on all ICE cars. Which would force part of the population to buy a truck and commute with it.
> "Most trips" doesn't work, the EV proponents want a ban on all ICE cars.
Politics is all about compromise. You actually have to start out at an extreme position so that when you meet in the middle at the end, it's still somewhat reasonable.
There will be bans on ICE cars at some point, but with a lot of footnotes.
Politics is all about compromise. You actually have to start out at an extreme position so that when you meet in the middle at the end, it's still somewhat reasonable.
There will be bans on ICE cars at some point, but with a lot of footnotes.
>Which would force part of the population to buy a truck and commute with it.
I think this is a symptom of a larger problem and despite the fact that people have this issue as of now should not strongly colour our perception of what's possible.
If you're commuting more than 2hrs to work by car then not only are you wasting a large percentage of your own life, but you're also harming the environment. It should not be a "given" that it's A) normal, B) done by a large portion of the population, C) hampering the endeavours to adopt vehicles that allow for a more sustainable energy acquisition.
Losing the ability to do a road trip? yeah, I buy that as a concern. But if you're one of the people affected by the range limitations of current EV's for commuting (one-way) then I have nothing but pity for you and I sincerely hope you either enjoy it or that your life improves (not being condescending, I really hope it gets better for you)
I think this is a symptom of a larger problem and despite the fact that people have this issue as of now should not strongly colour our perception of what's possible.
If you're commuting more than 2hrs to work by car then not only are you wasting a large percentage of your own life, but you're also harming the environment. It should not be a "given" that it's A) normal, B) done by a large portion of the population, C) hampering the endeavours to adopt vehicles that allow for a more sustainable energy acquisition.
Losing the ability to do a road trip? yeah, I buy that as a concern. But if you're one of the people affected by the range limitations of current EV's for commuting (one-way) then I have nothing but pity for you and I sincerely hope you either enjoy it or that your life improves (not being condescending, I really hope it gets better for you)
The problem is that companies are allowed to pile downtown to maximize profits, but that people should subsidize them in that as to not harm the environment.
So, if a legal framework is being made to look at sustainability, ICUs are not the only thing that should be looked at.
Edit: colder climates will have a lot of problems adopting EVs, if ever on a mass scale.
Edit: colder climates will have a lot of problems adopting EVs, if ever on a mass scale.
Companies piling downtown helps the environment. It allows more people to live close by or commute via mass transportation. Suburban sprawl is the energy-intensive way of living.
I've got an EV in Minneapolis (colder than Toronto but less crowded) and I love it. So does every EV owner I've ever met.
I've got an EV in Minneapolis (colder than Toronto but less crowded) and I love it. So does every EV owner I've ever met.
I'm playing devil's advocate here. Go look up the arguments yourself, and this time open your mind: range is a valid argument to the people making it. Even if realistically it isn't nearly as big a deal as they think, mental peace is more important than you seem to give it credit for.
Do you have a link to the "climate panel's" recommendations that increase the Tesla price? I can't find any specific recommendations with actual numbers, only general stuff on suggested areas for inventivising BEVs.
The idea is that EVs are fully taxed the danish 150% car tax (on top og the danish 25% sales tax) but get a discount of about 50.000 DKK or just under 8.000USD..
For a base Tesla Model S, that would mean a tax of about 120.000 USD..
For a base Tesla Model S, that would mean a tax of about 120.000 USD..
What's the current tax on a base Tesla Model S?
20% I believe
https://www.tesla.com/da_DK/support/incentives (Danish)
https://www.tesla.com/da_DK/support/incentives (Danish)
Yes but thats 20% of the 150% so more like 30%.
As the system is now, it will be 40% of the 150% by january.
As the system is now, it will be 40% of the 150% by january.
So you're saying the taxes on a 65.200 USD car will increase by 30.000 USD, with only 8.000 USD in discounts to offset the increase?
yes..
[deleted]
As great as it is, remember that hybrids are exempt. And the law is very lax when it comes to a definition of a hybrid - Range Rover has a model with a whooping 1 mile(!!!) of electric range, but of course it has an electric motor so it qualifies as a hybrid and could still be sold under this ban. I expect very very soon we'll see this kind of extremely minor electrification coming to all kinds of vehicles, where a tiny electric motor integrated into the transmission provides few extra HP of power just to call the car a hybrid.
> Range Rover has a model with a whooping 1 mile(!!!) of electric range, but of course it has an electric motor so it qualifies as a hybrid
"Just 1 mile of electric range" is true for most hybrids that don't plug into to charge (from Ford, Chevy, Toyota, etc). Obviously more miles would be even better, but this isn't a terrible thing on it's own.
The base non-plug-in Toyota Prius Hybrid has had "just 1 mile of electric range" for over a decade now, that hasn't stopped it from getting 50mpg ratings (a full 50% decrease in emissions from the current average US fleet MPG at ~25mpg).
"Just 1 mile of electric range" is true for most hybrids that don't plug into to charge (from Ford, Chevy, Toyota, etc). Obviously more miles would be even better, but this isn't a terrible thing on it's own.
The base non-plug-in Toyota Prius Hybrid has had "just 1 mile of electric range" for over a decade now, that hasn't stopped it from getting 50mpg ratings (a full 50% decrease in emissions from the current average US fleet MPG at ~25mpg).
This. Think of the battery and electric motor in a hybrid like a caching system that makes the power-train able to use energy a lot more efficiently.
It's like a solid state version of a giant flywheel under the car. Bonus in that there's no extra angular momentum.
Electric motor needs to be large enough to absorbe the momentum of travel, though. You saved momentum storage but not size.
> that hasn't stopped it from getting 50mpg ratings
Is this the "50mpg under ideal laboratory conditions driven by an AI" or "as driven in a real city/highway by a human"?
Is this the "50mpg under ideal laboratory conditions driven by an AI" or "as driven in a real city/highway by a human"?
50mpg as tested by the EPA - https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing . Real world drivers tend to report similar numbers - http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius
Obviously, you can stomp on the throttle and get worse numbers if you want. But US MPG ratings are reasonably real-world accurate. (And the US fleet number comes from the same testing from the same group using the same metrics -- so they should be fair to compare)
Obviously, you can stomp on the throttle and get worse numbers if you want. But US MPG ratings are reasonably real-world accurate. (And the US fleet number comes from the same testing from the same group using the same metrics -- so they should be fair to compare)
My 2016 Camry Hybrid consistently gets 39mpg. There are all kinds of situations where you don't need an engine, and it shuts off completely - like coasting downhill, on a ramp from one freeway to another, at 42 mph. Engine shuts off, and regenerative braking slows the car as much as everyone else is braking.
I get 49 MPG in mixed mode driving on a Euro III emissions compliant diesel every day. Newer diesels are even more efficient. And I don't spare the accelerator either.
Right, but it's diesel... you never know what else you're exhausting into the environment.
Euro 3 means you're probably not eligible to enter a good chunk number of European city centres - and for good reason.
As for MPG are you talking US gallons or imperial? Also what's your car's segment?
As for MPG are you talking US gallons or imperial? Also what's your car's segment?
U. S. gallons. My car is a large luxury performance sportwagon.
There are no cities with full bans on Euro III diesels or any diesel yet that I'm aware of or been denied entry in Sweden, and those few cities in Germany that do have them have only implemented partial restrictions.
The bans are not real, it's all just political maneuvering in order to get cheap votes.
There are no cities with full bans on Euro III diesels or any diesel yet that I'm aware of or been denied entry in Sweden, and those few cities in Germany that do have them have only implemented partial restrictions.
The bans are not real, it's all just political maneuvering in order to get cheap votes.
Do you trust Bosch and your vehicle manufacturer to be honest to you, when they lie to your government?
I do, because my manufacturer is a supercool Japanese company. Japanese diesels for life!
I trust physics and chemistry, that's what I trust: when you elongate the exhaust manifold and manage to cool the exhaust down enough, you end up not even needing to inject Urea and still have an Euro VI compliant diesel.
It's the only company selling diesel passenger vehicles in Japan right now, with such a good motor that it's beloved by taxi drivers there. Which company is it, and what is the engine called?
I trust physics and chemistry, that's what I trust: when you elongate the exhaust manifold and manage to cool the exhaust down enough, you end up not even needing to inject Urea and still have an Euro VI compliant diesel.
It's the only company selling diesel passenger vehicles in Japan right now, with such a good motor that it's beloved by taxi drivers there. Which company is it, and what is the engine called?
You would be surprised how many times you use that one EV mile during the average 30 mile commute. In traffic and cities, you often don't need more than the 40 HP given by the transmission alone.
Hybrids have a torque curve that starts like an EV, then continues like a gas car. This means great torque from 0 mph through highway speeds.
And then there's idle at stop lights, the biggest waste of fuel and a huge cause of pollution. Modern engines use 6 seconds of fuel when starting, but most cars idle for minutes at a light.
Hybrids have a torque curve that starts like an EV, then continues like a gas car. This means great torque from 0 mph through highway speeds.
And then there's idle at stop lights, the biggest waste of fuel and a huge cause of pollution. Modern engines use 6 seconds of fuel when starting, but most cars idle for minutes at a light.
Interesting bit about the Range Rover model, but from the fourth paragraph:
> “In just 12 years, we will prohibit the sale of new diesel and petrol cars. And in 17 years, every new car in Denmark must be an electric car or other forms of zero-emissions car,” Rasmussen said, implying that hybrids will be phased out in 2035.
> “In just 12 years, we will prohibit the sale of new diesel and petrol cars. And in 17 years, every new car in Denmark must be an electric car or other forms of zero-emissions car,” Rasmussen said, implying that hybrids will be phased out in 2035.
So hybrids are not as exempt as earlier discussion would suggest.
Any thoughts on converting a hybrid to an EV?
Edit: The engine cavity should be able to hold a lithium battery ~250+ lbs, and the 1.6 kWh NiMH battery is another ~250+ lbs that can be replaced with another lithium battery pack. If a Powerwall were used for each, the car would have 27.4 kWh, which I think would power my Camry Hybrid only about 30 miles. So maybe not very feasible until after another battery technology upgrade.
Any thoughts on converting a hybrid to an EV?
Edit: The engine cavity should be able to hold a lithium battery ~250+ lbs, and the 1.6 kWh NiMH battery is another ~250+ lbs that can be replaced with another lithium battery pack. If a Powerwall were used for each, the car would have 27.4 kWh, which I think would power my Camry Hybrid only about 30 miles. So maybe not very feasible until after another battery technology upgrade.
The 2019 Range Rover hybrid has an all electric range of 31 miles. Maybe an older model has a 1 mile electric range? That didn't pass the smell test so I had to look it up.
Yeah the new 400e has more range. The original that came out few years ago had only 1 mile range, as mentioned in the brochure:
https://www.landrover.com/Images/HYBRID_FAQ_GUIDE_Intreactiv...
"How far can my Range Rover Hybrid travel using just the electric motor?
When Electric Vehicle mode is activated manually using the EV button, the EV light on the instrument cluster will glow green. The Range Rover Hybrid will drive silently at slow speeds for a distance of up to 1 mile/1.6km provided the hybrid battery is fully charged when EV mode is activated"
https://www.landrover.com/Images/HYBRID_FAQ_GUIDE_Intreactiv...
"How far can my Range Rover Hybrid travel using just the electric motor?
When Electric Vehicle mode is activated manually using the EV button, the EV light on the instrument cluster will glow green. The Range Rover Hybrid will drive silently at slow speeds for a distance of up to 1 mile/1.6km provided the hybrid battery is fully charged when EV mode is activated"
That's actually plenty of storage to be useful to a hybrid vehicle. Remember, that battery is always charged by the engine so the trade-off of less weight also means longer range.
The vast majority of the efficiency gains in city driving from a non plug in Hybrid is regenerative breaking. Sure, slowing down across a huge mountain represents a lot of energy, but making stop an go traffic vastly more efficient takes very little storage.
The vast majority of the efficiency gains in city driving from a non plug in Hybrid is regenerative breaking. Sure, slowing down across a huge mountain represents a lot of energy, but making stop an go traffic vastly more efficient takes very little storage.
> Remember, that battery is always charged by the engine so the trade-off of less weight also means longer range.
True, but this car is already so extremely heavy that the added battery is 4-5%.
True, but this car is already so extremely heavy that the added battery is 4-5%.
At first that sounded ridiculous but actually it might be just right for an SUV in suburbia. Day to day driving is electric, then long distance is combustion. Pretty much what I would need in Australia.
Indeed. Mercedes has already announced that it will "electrify" 300 models over the next decade or so, and I expect at least 280 of those to work exactly as you said, not just for the purpose of exploiting this kind of legislation, but also for marketing purposes ("An electrified car is basically just the same as an electric car, right?").
> 1 mile(!!!) of electric range,
Other people have talked about this, but I'm wondering if the change to having electric drive motors and an engine just for generating electricity is more efficient and easier on the engine. (regenerative breaking aside)
Other people have talked about this, but I'm wondering if the change to having electric drive motors and an engine just for generating electricity is more efficient and easier on the engine. (regenerative breaking aside)
The Chevy Volt is like this -- drivetrain is electric, gas engine is just a generator.
What you are describing is a “series hybrid”. The Chevy Volt is not a pure series hybrid, it has an elaborate mechanism to connect the gas engine to the wheels when it is efficient to do so. For example highway cruise where the gas engine can run near its optimal rpm.
This is how hybrids work at low speeds. They use 2 motor/generators - 1 to push the wheels, and the other to refill the batteries.
Most hybrids use a slightly different engine, which is more efficient but generates less force. The hybrid transmission can add torque when accelerating or going uphill.
The engine must get less wear. My Camry Hybrid only needs an oil change every edit: 10,000 miles.
Most hybrids use a slightly different engine, which is more efficient but generates less force. The hybrid transmission can add torque when accelerating or going uphill.
The engine must get less wear. My Camry Hybrid only needs an oil change every edit: 10,000 miles.
My Camry Hybrid only needs an oil change every 5000 miles.
No, but you don't need a complex drive train, like modern plug-in hybrids have.
> And in 17 years, every new car in Denmark must be an electric car or other forms of zero-emissions car,” Rasmussen said, implying that hybrids will be phased out in 2035.
But then aren't hybrids better than BEV, given a few miles of range?
Why make a 90KwHr battery for a car, if you can make 3 cars out of it. After all current reserves of Cobalt, nickel, and lithium are finite.
Why make a 90KwHr battery for a car, if you can make 3 cars out of it. After all current reserves of Cobalt, nickel, and lithium are finite.
Cobalt is the most finite one of those, and once lithium prices go up it is likely someone will begin harvesting it from sea water
Or fising carbon to make lithium.
I assume that despite the one mile figure, it will still decrease the amount of fuel burnt. Not having to burn fuel for every stop and go will save a bunch of carbon I bet.
Car manufacturers are now looking at using 48v powered turbochargers to eliminate turbo lag. I wonder if that could be seen as an electrification of the powertrain?
A turbocharger is a funny shaped air compressor. So let's put an air compressor in the trunk and pipe the air to the intake manifold. And if there car is a hybrid, that battery can power the compressor too.
Actually the centrifugal compressor is pretty common in many applications, so more typical than funny looking.
I went to Denmark last year and spent two weeks driving all over the countryside, and likely would have been difficult to reach with an electric car. Many of the places I visited would not have been accessible via public transit. I'm curious how future generations will reach remote places as we move away from fossil fuels.
BTW, I loved Denmark :)
BTW, I loved Denmark :)
Send yourself back in time to when less than 1% of the populace is using petrol cars to get around. In that timeframe of the early 1900's, it would've been incredibly hard to get around the rural areas as well, since they'd still be dominated by horse, foot, and perhaps bicycle traffic. Now, send yourself forward 100 years: it will be nearly impossible to use petrol-powered transport, and EV will be the standard.
Saying the current infrastructure is inadequate for a new mode of transport is a truism. Infrastructure takes decades to build out, of course EV's will not be expected to have huge charging infrastructures while less than 1% of cars are EV.
Long term, It'll be just as easy, if not easier, to get around in the future. Consider all the new transport tech that's emerging: electric bikes, scooters, fully self-driving vehicles, drones which can carry people, VTOL aircraft, hyperloop, etc. They are all more interesting and promising than the current noxious fume spewing transport. I'm excited for even 1/3 of those options to come to fruition :)
Saying the current infrastructure is inadequate for a new mode of transport is a truism. Infrastructure takes decades to build out, of course EV's will not be expected to have huge charging infrastructures while less than 1% of cars are EV.
Long term, It'll be just as easy, if not easier, to get around in the future. Consider all the new transport tech that's emerging: electric bikes, scooters, fully self-driving vehicles, drones which can carry people, VTOL aircraft, hyperloop, etc. They are all more interesting and promising than the current noxious fume spewing transport. I'm excited for even 1/3 of those options to come to fruition :)
I absolutely agree with you about infrastructure. Its definitely coming and will cover most use cases.
But I do wonder how we're gonna cover that last mile. Adding hundreds of miles of range to an ICE car is hilariously simple, just a couple of plastic containers in the trunk and you're good to go.
Can't add extra batteries like that. Energy density is not a truism.
Maybe portable ICE generators, sort of like hybrid addons for full EVs.
I really liked the hybrid tech. I don't know why its not dominating.
But I do wonder how we're gonna cover that last mile. Adding hundreds of miles of range to an ICE car is hilariously simple, just a couple of plastic containers in the trunk and you're good to go.
Can't add extra batteries like that. Energy density is not a truism.
Maybe portable ICE generators, sort of like hybrid addons for full EVs.
I really liked the hybrid tech. I don't know why its not dominating.
There are power lines to most places already. The utility replaces/upgrades them on a schedule (IIRC the expected lifespan for overhead lines last for 17 years, underground for 15). Which is to say the infrastructure is mostly there, and just needs updates that would happen anyway.
This seems so clear and yet we get the "how are we going to build this huge charging network" all over the place. If the situation was reversed we'd consider it preposterous to think we could build a network of gas stations that get their fuel driven in by trucks. The current network is far crazier than just adding a bunch of outlets that use the existing and extremely robust electricity grid that's already in place.
> the hybrid tech. I don't know why its not dominating.
Because it isn't especially efficient.
Because it isn't especially efficient.
And people (peasants) lived and died in the same village there are good sides to increased mobility increased social mobility for one.
Difficult why? It's a tiny country.
Skagen (Northernmost tip) to Flensburg in Germany is ~402km. Skagen to Copenhagen (East) is 410km. The longest reasonable point to point journey in Denmark is in the 550km or so range (e.g. Skagen to Lolland), though you can certainly end up with longer journeys if you pick more convoluted routes for sight-seeing and end up having to charge, this will not be a typical journey for most people. And most of the population is located within a much smaller part of the country.
And this is with 12 years to expand charging networks and for vehicles to increase range before a ban on new petrol/diesel car sales, and in other words many more years before everyone will be forced to use an electric.
Skagen (Northernmost tip) to Flensburg in Germany is ~402km. Skagen to Copenhagen (East) is 410km. The longest reasonable point to point journey in Denmark is in the 550km or so range (e.g. Skagen to Lolland), though you can certainly end up with longer journeys if you pick more convoluted routes for sight-seeing and end up having to charge, this will not be a typical journey for most people. And most of the population is located within a much smaller part of the country.
And this is with 12 years to expand charging networks and for vehicles to increase range before a ban on new petrol/diesel car sales, and in other words many more years before everyone will be forced to use an electric.
> Difficult why? It's a tiny country.
You're not wrong. I was just wondering how people would get around.
Factors that made me wonder included:
- when you're sightseeing, it's faster to buy gas (in today's era) than to charge to full battery - the place I parked my car each night was not near a charging station and/or outlet - having infrastructure in place to drive all over makes means there's less friction to go to remote places, and if there's less demand for remote places in the future, there may be less infrastructure near those places
I'm not trying to make argue any specific point here. I was just wondering. And even though Denmark is a tiny country, many other are damn huge!
You're not wrong. I was just wondering how people would get around.
Factors that made me wonder included:
- when you're sightseeing, it's faster to buy gas (in today's era) than to charge to full battery - the place I parked my car each night was not near a charging station and/or outlet - having infrastructure in place to drive all over makes means there's less friction to go to remote places, and if there's less demand for remote places in the future, there may be less infrastructure near those places
I'm not trying to make argue any specific point here. I was just wondering. And even though Denmark is a tiny country, many other are damn huge!
Those petrol stations are only there because of all of the petrol/diesel powered cars on the road. By saying that there will be no new petrol/diesel cars sold by 2035, you can guess that most cars will be electric by 2045.
That means that investment can take place in setting up charging infrastructure around the country. Now businesses can invest in charging networks, safe in the knowledge that the demand will come. It's not here yet but it will be there.
That means that investment can take place in setting up charging infrastructure around the country. Now businesses can invest in charging networks, safe in the knowledge that the demand will come. It's not here yet but it will be there.
I guess the solution is to provide more charging stations, isn't it? Looks pretty straightforward to me.
What's more widely distributed than electricity?
Delivering high voltage to recharge the amperage these batteries need is a whole different grid in remote areas to delivering 240v for light bulbs and fridges.
Separately Norway is one of the richest countries on the planet thanks to its offshore oil. Their sovereign fund dwarfs Saudi Arabia in comparison so maybe they currently can cannibalize that revenue to build a supergrid.
China is building an ultra high voltage direct current supergrid to accommodate future EV needs (using primarily coal as a power source). I don't see this happening anywhere else?
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2171432...
Separately Norway is one of the richest countries on the planet thanks to its offshore oil. Their sovereign fund dwarfs Saudi Arabia in comparison so maybe they currently can cannibalize that revenue to build a supergrid.
China is building an ultra high voltage direct current supergrid to accommodate future EV needs (using primarily coal as a power source). I don't see this happening anywhere else?
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2171432...
Denmark doesn't really have "remote areas" by the standards of large countries.
Here's a map of the high voltage power grid. I don't think anywhere is more than 50km from a transmission line.
https://en.energinet.dk/-/media/9160AAB5C484432399767220B78D...
The increase will be gradual, and no doubt the power grid company is already planning for it.
Here's a map of the high voltage power grid. I don't think anywhere is more than 50km from a transmission line.
https://en.energinet.dk/-/media/9160AAB5C484432399767220B78D...
The increase will be gradual, and no doubt the power grid company is already planning for it.
> Delivering high voltage to recharge the amperage these batteries need is a whole different grid in remote areas to delivering 240v for light bulbs and fridges.
If they have 240v outlets, that's half the battle. That is around 31 miles per hour of charge, from a standard outlet (although you have to make sure your wiring is good) without any extra infrastructure.
This may not be sufficient for a cross-country drive across the continental US, but for most european countries? You can drive 300 miles and charge overnight even with no fast charging at all.
Compare this with setting up gas stations (digging underground to install the tanks, logistics to keep them topped off, etc) and gasoline starts to look quite insane. It's just that we have this existing infrastructure built over a century that we take for granted.
If they have 240v outlets, that's half the battle. That is around 31 miles per hour of charge, from a standard outlet (although you have to make sure your wiring is good) without any extra infrastructure.
This may not be sufficient for a cross-country drive across the continental US, but for most european countries? You can drive 300 miles and charge overnight even with no fast charging at all.
Compare this with setting up gas stations (digging underground to install the tanks, logistics to keep them topped off, etc) and gasoline starts to look quite insane. It's just that we have this existing infrastructure built over a century that we take for granted.
I don't know what the situation is in Europe, but in the US farmers use a lot of power. They have welders and other such tools that can draw 50 amps or more. The motors for their drying fans are drawing 20 amps each (and several of them can run at once). Note that the above amp figures are at 240 volts just like power in Europe, not the lower 120 we use for lights and fridges.
continuous draw for hundreds of thousands of batteries is vastly more than this example
What is the application for hundreds of thousands of batteries on a farm?
The guys who run the British National Grid disagree that the grid needs major changes: http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1264/ev-myth-buster-v032.p..., http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1253/final-fes-2017-update.... The Norwegians aren't predicting the need for supergrid either: http://publikasjoner.nve.no/rapport/2017/rapport2017_77.pdf (sorry it's in Norwegian and too big for Google and Bing to translate).
No need for a separate grid to deliver high voltage even in rural areas, the overhead or underground wires are between 4KV to 30KV anyway. There is a transformer to step it down to the end use voltage, whatever that is, eg 240 or 400.
You could use train/tram/trolleybus grid for adequate voltages.
Find me high-voltage high-amperage connections on the side of the freeway though.
That doesn't cost much (far less than a gas equivalent) and can be installed alongside highways within weeks.
If people purchase EV _en masse_, they'll have charging stations everywhere. There's no egg/chicken problem here.
If people purchase EV _en masse_, they'll have charging stations everywhere. There's no egg/chicken problem here.
Worldwide, transport energy use is about 150% total electricity use — 30PWh/y vs. 20PWh/y.
I’m not saying we can’t upgrade production (I’m actually significantly more optimistic than the best case IAE estimates), but it’s not as trivial as just installing some new wires and transformers.
I’m not saying we can’t upgrade production (I’m actually significantly more optimistic than the best case IAE estimates), but it’s not as trivial as just installing some new wires and transformers.
Yeah, so, the first thing to know about that is ICE is ludicrously inefficient. Spinning all that metal at variable speed with tiny explosions is, unsurprisingly, not the best way to turn high density fuels into energy. The thing ICE had on its side is the energy density, on other metrics it's a bad deal (hence why free charging for EVs is affordable)
So if you have 400MW of ICE cars you don't need 400MW of electricity to replace that, something more like 80-100MW is more like it IIRC. The infrastructure build cost isn't zero, but it's much less than this 150% metric suggests.
So if you have 400MW of ICE cars you don't need 400MW of electricity to replace that, something more like 80-100MW is more like it IIRC. The infrastructure build cost isn't zero, but it's much less than this 150% metric suggests.
"ludicrously inefficient"
No, they're not. They're, as implemented in a car, a ludicrous example of engineering compromises.
Put a hybrid drive methane spark-ignition high compression engine and you'll have similar CO2 emissions from a e-car powered by a thermal plant (the vast majority of our power). It'll cost as much as a Tesla too.
No, they're not. They're, as implemented in a car, a ludicrous example of engineering compromises.
Put a hybrid drive methane spark-ignition high compression engine and you'll have similar CO2 emissions from a e-car powered by a thermal plant (the vast majority of our power). It'll cost as much as a Tesla too.
Getting some rough numbers from Wikipedia it looks like most common new cars are sitting around 35% thermal efficiency. I believe a formula 1 engine achieved 50% thermal efficiency recently but the cost of that is obscenely high. Where as electric motor efficiency easily hits 90%+.
It's also quite inefficient to convert hydrocarbon energy to mechanical energy to electrical energy to chemical energy back to electrical energy and then back to mechanical energy, as an electric car does. ICE goes straight from hydrocarbon to mechanical. It would not surprise me if it's more efficient, though I don't know.
I'm curious, is that only non-point-to-point personal transportation or does it include all forms (e.g. ocean shipping, rail, public transport)?
That’s very good point, looking at my source the answer appears to be “everything”. I will try to remember that in future.
However, my point is only that we will need non trivial increases in electricity production, rather than any specific number. That point still stands.
However, my point is only that we will need non trivial increases in electricity production, rather than any specific number. That point still stands.
You could have a solar farm and some batteries close to each stations. It's not trivial but it isn't a bottleneck either.
When I ran the numbers for the USA, it was something along the lines of adding a 1m wide strip of normal efficiency PV alongside the entire length of the interstate network. I’ve not looked at the size of any other highway system relative to population density but I do know that Denmark gets less sunlight than the USA average.
Like I said in my original comment: I’m optimistic, I just don’t think it’s trivial.
To put it another way, I think it’s something that requires a government rather than being achievable purely with the private sector. That might mean just incentives and template plans, or it might require government to commission things, but it’s that sort of scale.
Like I said in my original comment: I’m optimistic, I just don’t think it’s trivial.
To put it another way, I think it’s something that requires a government rather than being achievable purely with the private sector. That might mean just incentives and template plans, or it might require government to commission things, but it’s that sort of scale.
Denmark is small, flat and relatively populated and rich.
Probably you're never far from a high voltage transmission line.
Probably you're never far from a high voltage transmission line.
They're already common along the highways in DK (incl. a few Superchargers)
Map: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=tesla+s...
Map: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=tesla+s...
Gasoline
Very straightforward. Now, who's going to foot that bill?
Same people who footed the bill for petrol/gas stations?
I.e. commercial operators who want to sell you coffee/snacks/flowers/other high-markup items as well as fuel/energy. Added bonus for EV: longer dwell time while waiting for a fast-charge means more likely to spend spend spend (perhaps)
I.e. commercial operators who want to sell you coffee/snacks/flowers/other high-markup items as well as fuel/energy. Added bonus for EV: longer dwell time while waiting for a fast-charge means more likely to spend spend spend (perhaps)
Major increases to a nations grid is not the same is putting up a cheap and cheerful shed and a few underground tanks.
"Same people who footed the bill for petrol/gas stations?"
That would be me, and I don't want to foot that bill, because at a gas station I can fill up the tank in under five minutes, and at a recharging station I'd have to wait a minimum of half an hour, so I wouldn't be getting the same level of service as I do today. As far as my wallet and especially my time (which is far more expensive) are concerned: no!
That would be me, and I don't want to foot that bill, because at a gas station I can fill up the tank in under five minutes, and at a recharging station I'd have to wait a minimum of half an hour, so I wouldn't be getting the same level of service as I do today. As far as my wallet and especially my time (which is far more expensive) are concerned: no!
I guess you'll need just need to get the bus when you cant get a fossil fuel vehicle any more. Good luck.
P.S. 350kw fast chargers are typically being advertised as zero to 80% charge in 15 minutes - cars that can accept these chargers are due in the next couple of years from Audi, Ford, BMW et al so mainstream "ordinary" cars as well as exotica like Porsche. I cant find any stats online, but I have read that the average time someone spends filling up with fossil fuels is 7 minutes, so an extra 8 minutes is not that outrageous and even that is zero to 80% - if you had say 20% remaining I'd imagine that the time would be in the order 10-12 minutes (guesstimate)
P.S. 350kw fast chargers are typically being advertised as zero to 80% charge in 15 minutes - cars that can accept these chargers are due in the next couple of years from Audi, Ford, BMW et al so mainstream "ordinary" cars as well as exotica like Porsche. I cant find any stats online, but I have read that the average time someone spends filling up with fossil fuels is 7 minutes, so an extra 8 minutes is not that outrageous and even that is zero to 80% - if you had say 20% remaining I'd imagine that the time would be in the order 10-12 minutes (guesstimate)
"I guess you'll need just need to get the bus when you cant get a fossil fuel vehicle any more. Good luck."
A bus also needs diesel (:-D)
My car is old enough that I could make my own biodiesel with the electricity from solar panels and run on it, so when the rest are stuck, I'll always have fuel. Even if nuclear war hits.
A bus also needs diesel (:-D)
My car is old enough that I could make my own biodiesel with the electricity from solar panels and run on it, so when the rest are stuck, I'll always have fuel. Even if nuclear war hits.
There are electric buses running as test vehicles on major bus routes in Copenhagen, and the 5C bus line runs CNG buses exclusively.
Diesel buses are still the majority, but they are slowly being phased out.
Diesel buses are still the majority, but they are slowly being phased out.
There are already 100% electric busses running in London and elsewhere, with more on their way.
Good luck making your own fuel (N.B. in a lot of places it is illegal or in dubious grey-areas, plus there are the obvious environmental and safety implications which might prevent you from doing it one way or another). Why not just use that electricity from the solar panels to charge an EV's batteries?
Good luck making your own fuel (N.B. in a lot of places it is illegal or in dubious grey-areas, plus there are the obvious environmental and safety implications which might prevent you from doing it one way or another). Why not just use that electricity from the solar panels to charge an EV's batteries?
"Good luck making your own fuel (N.B. in a lot of places it is illegal or in dubious grey-areas,"
Biodiesel has lower emissions of both NOx and CO2. By the time we're in such an apocalyptic scenario where internal combustion engines are a thing of the post, nobody will be giving a damn about some guy driving such an anachronism. And show me where it's illegal to produce one's own fuel.
"Why not just use that electricity from the solar panels to charge an EV's batteries?"
(Car guy here! I just came back from Hockenheim with my racing license not too long ago!)
Because with my diesel, I have a range of at least 1000 km, ~1300 km if I hypermile. Batteries lose capacity. Electric cars have no clutch pedal nor a manual transmission (they don't need it), so for a car guy like me, that sucks serious ass. Acceleration isn't everything: electric vehicles sap all the enjoyment out of driving. If there were electric cars with a clutch pedal and a manual transmission, I'd be willing to trade the range and make a compromise, but there aren't so there is no incentive for me to do so.
Biodiesel has lower emissions of both NOx and CO2. By the time we're in such an apocalyptic scenario where internal combustion engines are a thing of the post, nobody will be giving a damn about some guy driving such an anachronism. And show me where it's illegal to produce one's own fuel.
"Why not just use that electricity from the solar panels to charge an EV's batteries?"
(Car guy here! I just came back from Hockenheim with my racing license not too long ago!)
Because with my diesel, I have a range of at least 1000 km, ~1300 km if I hypermile. Batteries lose capacity. Electric cars have no clutch pedal nor a manual transmission (they don't need it), so for a car guy like me, that sucks serious ass. Acceleration isn't everything: electric vehicles sap all the enjoyment out of driving. If there were electric cars with a clutch pedal and a manual transmission, I'd be willing to trade the range and make a compromise, but there aren't so there is no incentive for me to do so.
You are out of luck then. It is the direction the market and governments are headed in.
"The needs of many outweigh the needs of few?"
I've heard such rhetoric before; it did not end well.
I've heard such rhetoric before; it did not end well.
A charging station is probably cheaper than a gas station to build.
Id like to see your figures on that.
I have no numbers but it seems a charging station is simpler. No gas tank to bury, no risk of leakage, no fire hazards.
A couple years ago, a quick charger (CHAdeMO, not Tesla's) cost about 50k. Not sure what kind of permits were required.
Can you build a gas station with 50k? How much is just the labor to bury the underground tank?
And that's a quick charger, which you would use mostly for trips. For most purposes you only need easily accessible power outlets (although the level 2 stations are far more convenient). Most cars are sitting in parking lots most of the time anyway.
Can you build a gas station with 50k? How much is just the labor to bury the underground tank?
And that's a quick charger, which you would use mostly for trips. For most purposes you only need easily accessible power outlets (although the level 2 stations are far more convenient). Most cars are sitting in parking lots most of the time anyway.
How far ahead are you thinking?
BEVs are likely to match pure ICEVs (I.e. not counting hybrids) in range in the not too distant future. Yeah you could theoretically put in a bigger fuel tank, or bring extra gasoline. But I mean a standard light vehicle that doesn't sacrifice storage space.
Meanwhile, if you get enough EVs on the road, you'll soon have charging stations everywhere. We already see it here in Norway. Almost every roadside McDonalds have rapid chargers. There are a couple of supermarket chains that have gotten pretty good at having chargers in many of their supermarkets.
BEVs are likely to match pure ICEVs (I.e. not counting hybrids) in range in the not too distant future. Yeah you could theoretically put in a bigger fuel tank, or bring extra gasoline. But I mean a standard light vehicle that doesn't sacrifice storage space.
Meanwhile, if you get enough EVs on the road, you'll soon have charging stations everywhere. We already see it here in Norway. Almost every roadside McDonalds have rapid chargers. There are a couple of supermarket chains that have gotten pretty good at having chargers in many of their supermarkets.
> There are a couple of supermarket chains that have gotten pretty good at having chargers in many of their supermarkets.
Not where I am. I've recently driven several times from Drammen to Trondheim and never seen a charger at any of the supermarkets I passed on the way. I don't mean they don't exist, just that I didn't see them, can you list a few of them?
Not where I am. I've recently driven several times from Drammen to Trondheim and never seen a charger at any of the supermarkets I passed on the way. I don't mean they don't exist, just that I didn't see them, can you list a few of them?
I live in the furthest, most godforsaken boondocks of Denmark. I see Teslas almost daily.
Of course I do. There's probably nowhere in the country I couldn't reach on a single charge.
I used to think the same about where I live - Australia - a lot bigger and more sparsely populated than Denmark. But here is an article about the first woman (and second person) to drive around the country in an EV:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/12/how-much...
and two maps of the network in 2016 and 2018, showing the effort (by Tesla owners club!) in building out the network:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/12/how-much...
Yep they're not all superchargers, many are just EV friendly 240v hookups. But as the lady in the first article said "the reality is that if you can see the lights on, or that the kettle works, then you can charge".
Got me thinking about my next car. Or campervan. We often camp in caravan parks - with a 15 amp hookup plugged into the vehicle...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/12/how-much...
and two maps of the network in 2016 and 2018, showing the effort (by Tesla owners club!) in building out the network:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/12/how-much...
Yep they're not all superchargers, many are just EV friendly 240v hookups. But as the lady in the first article said "the reality is that if you can see the lights on, or that the kettle works, then you can charge".
Got me thinking about my next car. Or campervan. We often camp in caravan parks - with a 15 amp hookup plugged into the vehicle...
The local news is reporting the plan is to stop sales of diesel cars.
Not gasoline...
Regardless, if we force the market, electric cars will catch up. But bans probably won't do the trick, I bet it'll take incentives in terms of higher taxes on gasoline and lower on electric cars.
Not gasoline...
Regardless, if we force the market, electric cars will catch up. But bans probably won't do the trick, I bet it'll take incentives in terms of higher taxes on gasoline and lower on electric cars.
Did any of these places lack electricity, or why do you think an electric car would have been problematic? I just came back from a 2800 Km trip through rural Italy (5 days) and had no issues at all (OK, except for crappy roads and bad Google Maps data routing me through buildings etc.).
Is this not enough charging stations?
https://i.imgur.com/dd9Jdzf.png (Orange are high power chargers, green are lower power chargers, source is plugshare.com)
https://i.imgur.com/dd9Jdzf.png (Orange are high power chargers, green are lower power chargers, source is plugshare.com)
And that's not counting people's own charging points at home. Most people will rarely need a public one as they can probably do several of their daily commutes on a single charge.
Indeed. Not only do I charge at home primarily, I installed two public chargers out on my large driveway for additional EV charging in the event my nearby Supercharger is full (my chargers are ClipperCreek, are EV agnostic, and advertised on PlugShare).
My employer installed several stations as well at my request when Tesla was still offering equipment for free (equal parts Tesla specific chargers and generic EV chargers), which I plug into when at the office, but only to stay topped up while my vehicle actively keeps itself cool in the Florida sun.
My employer installed several stations as well at my request when Tesla was still offering equipment for free (equal parts Tesla specific chargers and generic EV chargers), which I plug into when at the office, but only to stay topped up while my vehicle actively keeps itself cool in the Florida sun.
I biked through Denmark a few years back. It's a really small country. So a modern electric car would need like one stop to recharge in the middle somewhere?
I presume that hybrid cars will solve this problem for remote travellers.
Which you'd expect to basically become a niche case eventually.
There is a long list of countries that decided to ban fossil fuel burning cars in the upcoming years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_banning_foss...
Personally, I don't think the ban will ever be enforced. It will create the right incentives and most car sales will be electric, but there will still be fossil fuel burning car sales.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_banning_foss...
Personally, I don't think the ban will ever be enforced. It will create the right incentives and most car sales will be electric, but there will still be fossil fuel burning car sales.
There is an easy way out too: "We believe mandating the purchase of a new car may be difficult for some families and may inadvertently discriminate against the poor". Add some buzzwords like "singe mother", "working through college", and "recently laid off" and it'll be one of the easiest regulations to walk out of, assuming anyone remembers in 2030
Enforcing it is going to be quite simple.
The "DMV" or equivalent will have a very hard time explaining why they are still giving out license plates for new vehicles that are not electric if the ban is made law.
The "DMV" or equivalent will have a very hard time explaining why they are still giving out license plates for new vehicles that are not electric if the ban is made law.
As I explained elsewhere - hybrids are exempt. And all current manufacturers can make all of their models into some extremely mild hybrids just to get around the ban. So expect to see a lot of models with 1bhp electric motors just to classify as hybrids coming out soon. And cars made before the ban will obviously be still allowed, so there's no issues there.
People still need to buy the cars. Just like Dieselgate has killed diesel, people will vote with their wallets if manufacturers start trying to pull the wool over customers' eyes.
Also obviously a 1bhp hybrid would get awful fuel economy figures compared to a real hybrid. If you are a manufacturer and you go to all that bother to build a hybrid, why bother doing a 1bhp motor instead of a 30bhp motor? Whats the point? Just to "get around" the law? Why not just put a proper motor in and make a better, more competitive product? I doubt the cost of a 1bhp motor is much less than a 30bhp in the grand scheme of things needed to build a hybrid car (e.g. batteries)
Also obviously a 1bhp hybrid would get awful fuel economy figures compared to a real hybrid. If you are a manufacturer and you go to all that bother to build a hybrid, why bother doing a 1bhp motor instead of a 30bhp motor? Whats the point? Just to "get around" the law? Why not just put a proper motor in and make a better, more competitive product? I doubt the cost of a 1bhp motor is much less than a 30bhp in the grand scheme of things needed to build a hybrid car (e.g. batteries)
floatrock previously pointed out that your statement about hybrids being exempt does not appear to be true:
"“In just 12 years, we will prohibit the sale of new diesel and petrol cars. And in 17 years, every new car in Denmark must be an electric car or other forms of zero-emissions car,” Rasmussen said, implying that hybrids will be phased out in 2035."
"“In just 12 years, we will prohibit the sale of new diesel and petrol cars. And in 17 years, every new car in Denmark must be an electric car or other forms of zero-emissions car,” Rasmussen said, implying that hybrids will be phased out in 2035."
Uhmmmm....it does the exact opposite - it proves what I said. The law coming in 12 years will have an exemption for hybrids. The hybrid ban will come later(if ever)
I doubt it. This is already a solved problem. We have emission standards that makes those designs more or less pointless.
Yes, by the time Euro 7 is out, no one will make highway-rated petrol engines that small.
Yeah, I was referring to the fact that the regulation won't come into force and will keep getting pushed back.
Wonder what it'd do to the resale value of cars even before 2030.
Denmark with their famous 150% registration tax already has cars being used much longer than what I've seen in other countries. I'd love to see the 150% tax waived off for 100% electric cars that are not luxury vehicles. Set strict constraints for a common man car, and incentivize it turning electric.
Also, think about the charging infrastructure....
Denmark with their famous 150% registration tax already has cars being used much longer than what I've seen in other countries. I'd love to see the 150% tax waived off for 100% electric cars that are not luxury vehicles. Set strict constraints for a common man car, and incentivize it turning electric.
Also, think about the charging infrastructure....
I never understood how anyone possibly felt the ridiculously extremist state of affairs of automobile/fuel regulations/taxes/etc in Denmark is appropriate. The rest of Europe isn't that great either but Denmark is one of or the most insane examples (memory isn't clear on if there was another member state that was even worse). One of the things that makes me grateful to live in the USA - owning and operating a car doesn't bankrupt me, especially anything bigger than a clown car with any less than 50mpg.
See, now I take the opposite view.
Denmark may have some fairly onerous taxes, but that seems to be more than made up for by the quality of life, healthcare, education and so on. I have two good friends who moved from UK to Denmark, both high earners with families, neither would consider returning to the UK for a millisecond. As UK austerity continues and Brexit nears I'm thinking of it myself.
The USA's ridiculously high subsidy of petrol has struck me as crazy ever since my first visit in the 80s or 90s, and I rented a "standard" car that turned out to be as large as a small aircraft carrier. It handled like an aircraft carrier too.
Denmark may have some fairly onerous taxes, but that seems to be more than made up for by the quality of life, healthcare, education and so on. I have two good friends who moved from UK to Denmark, both high earners with families, neither would consider returning to the UK for a millisecond. As UK austerity continues and Brexit nears I'm thinking of it myself.
The USA's ridiculously high subsidy of petrol has struck me as crazy ever since my first visit in the 80s or 90s, and I rented a "standard" car that turned out to be as large as a small aircraft carrier. It handled like an aircraft carrier too.
Is a tax a subsidy if you personally find it too low?
I find it completely worthwhile "subsidizing" personal vehicles. Everything else just feels oppressive in comparison (barring scenarios like bicycling being faster than the gridlock in Manhattan). Quality of life seems much better to me not being forced into transit or having to bike everywhere, so it makes sense to me for the government to invest in it.
How big was that car you rented? Can you remember the make/model? I went from a tiny car I had to lower myself down to get into (98 Ford Escort ZX2) to a Jeep Grand Cherokee and the handling is just as good if not better and the ride is smoother all around. Feels much nicer having the extra space too, and not having to contort myself to get in.
I find it completely worthwhile "subsidizing" personal vehicles. Everything else just feels oppressive in comparison (barring scenarios like bicycling being faster than the gridlock in Manhattan). Quality of life seems much better to me not being forced into transit or having to bike everywhere, so it makes sense to me for the government to invest in it.
How big was that car you rented? Can you remember the make/model? I went from a tiny car I had to lower myself down to get into (98 Ford Escort ZX2) to a Jeep Grand Cherokee and the handling is just as good if not better and the ride is smoother all around. Feels much nicer having the extra space too, and not having to contort myself to get in.
Subsidizing personal vehicles sounds completely insane and irresponsible to me.
The problem is that everyone ends up with their own vehicle and this gridlocks any road in/out of a city. Which ~big city in the world does not have trafic problems? And what is the average passenger count in those cars. One bus can replace MANY cars. But for some reason i cannot comprehend taking the bus or train seems oppressive to some people. I get this is not an option everywhere but where i live it most definatly is and people still complain about the tolls drivers have to pay to commute into the city and refuse to take the bus/train.
The problem is that everyone ends up with their own vehicle and this gridlocks any road in/out of a city. Which ~big city in the world does not have trafic problems? And what is the average passenger count in those cars. One bus can replace MANY cars. But for some reason i cannot comprehend taking the bus or train seems oppressive to some people. I get this is not an option everywhere but where i live it most definatly is and people still complain about the tolls drivers have to pay to commute into the city and refuse to take the bus/train.
Taking the light rail from Renton to Seattle costs twice as much (or more) than gasoline to drive there. And takes 3 times as long. Not including parking.
And the train doesn't run on Saturday nights, so if you want a fun night in the city, you're driving anyway.
And the train doesn't run on Saturday nights, so if you want a fun night in the city, you're driving anyway.
> Is a tax a subsidy if you personally find it too low?
That could be an interesting discussion. In effect it could be.
On transportation, I'm more for having a level playing field, and discouraging polluters. More so since I've learnt of climate change. To give a UK example the government pays for roads, but not rails - that's a subsidy, yet most would agree the railways need more investment to increase capacity.
I'm happy discouraging individually polluting cars and promoting transport choices - buses, trams and trains, even if I have to pay a little more tax. I'd like to see investment to get more services, more routes, better timetables, adding cycle routes etc. Not just in London. More like the Netherlands for instance. As a car owner I have often taken a bus or train as the better choice thanks to not needing to find or pay parking or be able to have a night out and a few drinks. The UK can't just keep throwing more one occupant vehicles at our increasingly gridlocked roads.
I realise that can't work as easily in the US given how far you built everything around the car. It would take a lot of work to get back to balance or create viable and appealing transport that isn't seen as something you're forced into.
As to what car, at this point I have no memory other than it being a US only make (Chevy maybe), my first US trip was late 80s early 90s. It was referred to as "standard" size before we flew out. I brought UK expectations to that, where a hire would be compact (smaller than Ford Escort, probably a Ford Fiesta), standard would maybe be a BMW 3 series (of the 90s - everything keeps getting bigger!) or Toyota Corola, then large and luxury choices. What I got was something similar in style and size to a NYC cab as seen on so many movies but with a nicer interior. Turns out they're bloody enormous! Thankfully so are US parking spaces. :)
That could be an interesting discussion. In effect it could be.
On transportation, I'm more for having a level playing field, and discouraging polluters. More so since I've learnt of climate change. To give a UK example the government pays for roads, but not rails - that's a subsidy, yet most would agree the railways need more investment to increase capacity.
I'm happy discouraging individually polluting cars and promoting transport choices - buses, trams and trains, even if I have to pay a little more tax. I'd like to see investment to get more services, more routes, better timetables, adding cycle routes etc. Not just in London. More like the Netherlands for instance. As a car owner I have often taken a bus or train as the better choice thanks to not needing to find or pay parking or be able to have a night out and a few drinks. The UK can't just keep throwing more one occupant vehicles at our increasingly gridlocked roads.
I realise that can't work as easily in the US given how far you built everything around the car. It would take a lot of work to get back to balance or create viable and appealing transport that isn't seen as something you're forced into.
As to what car, at this point I have no memory other than it being a US only make (Chevy maybe), my first US trip was late 80s early 90s. It was referred to as "standard" size before we flew out. I brought UK expectations to that, where a hire would be compact (smaller than Ford Escort, probably a Ford Fiesta), standard would maybe be a BMW 3 series (of the 90s - everything keeps getting bigger!) or Toyota Corola, then large and luxury choices. What I got was something similar in style and size to a NYC cab as seen on so many movies but with a nicer interior. Turns out they're bloody enormous! Thankfully so are US parking spaces. :)
> 98 Ford Escort ZX2 to a Jeep Grand Cherokee and the handling is just as good if not better
Unless the Escort was broken this seems too rose tinted a view. Large SUVs like that may be comfortable but they definitely don't handle well.
Unless the Escort was broken this seems too rose tinted a view. Large SUVs like that may be comfortable but they definitely don't handle well.
What are some specific things that should feel different? Turning, merging, accelerating (especially with overdrive off) all feel great. Turning radius isn't bad at all. Only thing is you can't take tight corners super fast unless you want to flip over.
> Only thing is you can't take tight corners super fast unless you want to flip over.
This is what is usually called "handling". The other things you describe are driving comfort or something like that. "Handling" usually means the dynamic characteristics of the car that would make it fast around the turns in a track for example. The large mass at a high center of gravity makes all SUVs pretty bad at this.
This is what is usually called "handling". The other things you describe are driving comfort or something like that. "Handling" usually means the dynamic characteristics of the car that would make it fast around the turns in a track for example. The large mass at a high center of gravity makes all SUVs pretty bad at this.
FWIW, a Ford Escort is not a tiny car to anyone not from the US.
There are smaller around here, like those smart cars and a few other two door sedans, but it's definitely on the smaller end here. Probably average size for the UK from what I've heard?
In the whole nation of Denmark, 26% of all sub-5km trips are by bike.
In Portland, the US's most celebrated cycle city, 6.3% of commuter journeys are by bike.
It looks to me like Denmark has it right; and that taxing polluting vehicles (you know, there's this thing called climate change?) is perhaps a better strategy than sneeringly calling them "clown cars".
In Portland, the US's most celebrated cycle city, 6.3% of commuter journeys are by bike.
It looks to me like Denmark has it right; and that taxing polluting vehicles (you know, there's this thing called climate change?) is perhaps a better strategy than sneeringly calling them "clown cars".
Also it means less congestion on the roads, because there are fewer cars.
If most middle class families can get by with just one car, maybe that's good for everyone.
Note. Today cheaper cars and high incoming means many families have two cars.
If most middle class families can get by with just one car, maybe that's good for everyone.
Note. Today cheaper cars and high incoming means many families have two cars.
Less people able to afford groceries would mean the grocery store was less crowded, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.
I wrote the comment you responded to. I live in Denmark, and here is my take on this.
It's not as extreme that I'd call it "extremist state of affairs". Fewer cars are for the greater good. However, what pisses me the most is how it is really implemented. There is the famous 150% tax when you buy a car, and then there is a green tax every 6 months/quarter that is based on how efficient &a safe your car is. I'm all for the green tax. Heck, double or triple it, and make the SUV drivers pay. But, the 150% tax IMO is lop sided policy. It lead to too many small cars(VW Up, Seat equivalent, and the like) because that's what common people can afford. Another side effect is that people tend to keep shitty cars much longer than rational, because they cannot afford a better car - throwing away all the emission savings in the wind(pun intended).
I think the law is made by politicians just based on life in Copenhagen, where you can use the trains and bike wherever. Public transportation is A-class, and you don't particularly need a car for the most part.
The rest of Denmark, where I live, public transport is not as good, and car becomes a necessity if you go to work outside the city. We're the collateral damage of the narrow minded policies.
/rant.
Denmark, as everyone here says is an excellent place to live, and I have a bigger list of positives to list, and a tiny list including this car tax to complain about.
It's not as extreme that I'd call it "extremist state of affairs". Fewer cars are for the greater good. However, what pisses me the most is how it is really implemented. There is the famous 150% tax when you buy a car, and then there is a green tax every 6 months/quarter that is based on how efficient &a safe your car is. I'm all for the green tax. Heck, double or triple it, and make the SUV drivers pay. But, the 150% tax IMO is lop sided policy. It lead to too many small cars(VW Up, Seat equivalent, and the like) because that's what common people can afford. Another side effect is that people tend to keep shitty cars much longer than rational, because they cannot afford a better car - throwing away all the emission savings in the wind(pun intended).
I think the law is made by politicians just based on life in Copenhagen, where you can use the trains and bike wherever. Public transportation is A-class, and you don't particularly need a car for the most part.
The rest of Denmark, where I live, public transport is not as good, and car becomes a necessity if you go to work outside the city. We're the collateral damage of the narrow minded policies.
/rant.
Denmark, as everyone here says is an excellent place to live, and I have a bigger list of positives to list, and a tiny list including this car tax to complain about.
>people tend to keep shitty cars much longer than rational, because they cannot afford a better car - throwing away all the emission savings
Keeping an older car rather than buying a new one is often the more environmentally sound decision, because it takes a very long time for improved efficiency to break even on the massive environmental investment of manufacturing the new car.
Keeping an older car rather than buying a new one is often the more environmentally sound decision, because it takes a very long time for improved efficiency to break even on the massive environmental investment of manufacturing the new car.
> It lead to too many small cars(VW Up, Seat equivalent, and the like) because that's what common people can afford
Slightly confused - what's the issue here? Small cars are good. They take up less street space and tend to be more economical. My wife owns a Fiat 500 (which is about as small as you get); it's much easier to park on the narrow streets of our rural town than a bigger car would be, its fuel consumption is stellar, and it's no bigger than we need.
Slightly confused - what's the issue here? Small cars are good. They take up less street space and tend to be more economical. My wife owns a Fiat 500 (which is about as small as you get); it's much easier to park on the narrow streets of our rural town than a bigger car would be, its fuel consumption is stellar, and it's no bigger than we need.
Large cars are seen as status symbols, so a lot of people think they need a big car to show how successful they are, and to "keep up with the Joneses".
The sooner people shed this silly consumerism mindset, the better.
The sooner people shed this silly consumerism mindset, the better.
> Another side effect is that people tend to keep shitty cars much longer than rational, because they cannot afford a better car - throwing away all the emission savings in the wind(pun intended).
Here in Norway the car has to pass quite strict emission standards (EU kontroll) every 2 years or it will not be allowed on the road. I think you have the same thing as it's from EU. So the amount of old clunkers that pollute should be minimal, mostly limited to veteran cars (25+ years in Norway) which are exempt.
Here in Norway the car has to pass quite strict emission standards (EU kontroll) every 2 years or it will not be allowed on the road. I think you have the same thing as it's from EU. So the amount of old clunkers that pollute should be minimal, mostly limited to veteran cars (25+ years in Norway) which are exempt.
> they cannot afford a better car - throwing away all the emission savings
Buying a new car for proportionally lower emissions is a false economy as much of the carbon footprint of a car is in its manufacture, not just its use. Holding onto older cars that aren't offensively inefficient (e.g. any small hatchback) seems environmentally responsible to me.
Buying a new car for proportionally lower emissions is a false economy as much of the carbon footprint of a car is in its manufacture, not just its use. Holding onto older cars that aren't offensively inefficient (e.g. any small hatchback) seems environmentally responsible to me.
The carbon footprint of the manufacturing process is ~20% of the lifetime footprint for the car.
Agreed, the tax is not ideal. It's better than nothing..
But it would be even better if we somehow could tax households higher for their second car.
In practice it's probably an administrative nightmare with too many loopholes.
But it would be even better if we somehow could tax households higher for their second car.
In practice it's probably an administrative nightmare with too many loopholes.
>I never understood how anyone possibly felt the ridiculously extremist state of affairs of automobile/fuel regulations/taxes/etc in Denmark is appropriate.
You will never understand it because those people have a completely different world view than you or I when it comes to taxation. You will also probably never understand a lot of other crazy things that people with different world views believe.
The idea that taxes and government involvement in everything should be the minimum possible is foreign to them in the same way that a woman is CEO of GM and that's not a problem to us is completely foreign to the Taliban.
Obviously it's a two way street and the idea that someone would want gas to cost $5/L and that someone might not be ok with a female CEO is equally foreign and impossible for us to relate to.
You will never understand it because those people have a completely different world view than you or I when it comes to taxation. You will also probably never understand a lot of other crazy things that people with different world views believe.
The idea that taxes and government involvement in everything should be the minimum possible is foreign to them in the same way that a woman is CEO of GM and that's not a problem to us is completely foreign to the Taliban.
Obviously it's a two way street and the idea that someone would want gas to cost $5/L and that someone might not be ok with a female CEO is equally foreign and impossible for us to relate to.
Up to a point. I'm Danish, and I should certainly like the state to gtf out of whole sectors of what it's currently busybodying around with. I have worked in the public sector here ('been employed by' is a more accurate term) - I've seen the waste and the iron law of bureaucracy at full mindless throttle.
But you're right in the sense that I'm in a small minority here, and that most people have not a clue in the world what I'm even talking about.
$5/L? Make that $50/L if I was in charge.
I suppose one fairly effective way to reduce emissions is to crush the economy. But it does have some negative externalities.
I don't see why it's insane to put huge taxes on something that polutes our environment, is dangerous to people around them, causes a lot of noise and other irritations. Pushing more people towards electric and public transportation is only a good thing in my opinion. If you insist on a poluting private car, fine, just pay for it (big time).
I never understood how anyone possibly felt the ridiculously extremist state of affairs of automobile/fuel regulations/subsidies etc in the United States is appropriate. The rest of the world isn't that great either but the United States is one of or the most insane example (memory isn't clear on if there's another major country that's even worse). One of the things that makes me ashamed to live in the USA - owning and operating a car in a spectacularly wasteful way doesn't pay for its own externalities, even anything bigger than an efficient people-mover with any less than 50mpg.
On the environmental side keeping old cars longer actually makes sense. Because production of cars produces a lot of CO2.
But historically this was a trick to minimize the trade deficit, because we don't produce cars in Denmark.
Today, however, it's hard to get rid off this tax. Because you have to find the money, and as soon as you start talking about this tax people stop trading cars.
IMO, cars isn't where we need tax breaks it'll mean even more congestion in the roads. We need to invest the upcoming surpluses if you ask me.
But historically this was a trick to minimize the trade deficit, because we don't produce cars in Denmark.
Today, however, it's hard to get rid off this tax. Because you have to find the money, and as soon as you start talking about this tax people stop trading cars.
IMO, cars isn't where we need tax breaks it'll mean even more congestion in the roads. We need to invest the upcoming surpluses if you ask me.
Considering that Denmark in 30th in the world in the number of cars per capita, above France, the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands, doesn't seem that problematic.
>Europe isn't that great either but Denmark is one of or the most insane examples .... One of the things that makes me grateful to live in the USA - owning and operating a car doesn't bankrupt me
until you get into an accident severe enough to need extensive medical attention.
until you get into an accident severe enough to need extensive medical attention.
Besides health insurance, my legally bare minimim car insurance is mandated to have 20k or something of medical coverage.
Why does it make any difference whether it is a luxury vehicle or not?
If you want to tax the crap out of vehicles (like Denmark) then it makes sense to give some relief to people who just need to get around as opposed to people who can afford a 50k+ car.
I suppose.
I suppose.
Why does (specifically) taxing any luxury make sense?
If you are going to introduce a flat tax on a good--say 5% for all members of society regardless of wealth--that tax would affect the poor more than it affects the rich, even if it is functionally the same amount of money. With this in mind, it may make sense to apply such a tax only to goods that are purchased more often by those that have the means to pay the extra tax without needing to make sacrifices for it, e.g. a luxury tax.
[deleted]
Instead of governments announcing bans (I believe france announced a future ban a couple months back), I would rather see these governments committing to only purchasing electric vehicles for all government fleets. Why not put your money were your mouth is and help pump money into the industry via purchasing orders, rather then simply announcing a ban?
Because this does exactly that, and more. The gov have effectively committed to buying only elecrtic fleets because thats all that will be sold.
Not really, these bans are set so far in the future that they are almost meaningless, a problem for the next government to figure out, or delay even further.
On the other hand, the current government could easily announce that starting in 2020 all new government fleet purchases are required to be electric and it would help create a lot of new competition to bid for those orders.
On the other hand, the current government could easily announce that starting in 2020 all new government fleet purchases are required to be electric and it would help create a lot of new competition to bid for those orders.
This is leading by decree. At best the next government has to deal with it (or exempt themselves).
Purchasing electric fleets in order to speed up development and adopting of EVs is leading by example.
Purchasing electric fleets in order to speed up development and adopting of EVs is leading by example.
For one example [1], Copenhagen is converting the buses and harbour ferries to electric. Already, many of the busiest or most-central routes use LPG or hybrid buses.
Many of the city's other vehicles are electric, for example the vehicles used for collecting litter or moving the workmen who do minor repairs.
That isn't the national government though. I don't know what cars they use.
I don't want to link to the kind of newspapers that report on European royal families, but the crown prince of Denmark takes his children to school/nursery by bicycle. (Last time I saw them, the oldest was riding her own bike.)
[1] https://www.sustainable-bus.com/electric-bus/copenaghen-purc...
Many of the city's other vehicles are electric, for example the vehicles used for collecting litter or moving the workmen who do minor repairs.
That isn't the national government though. I don't know what cars they use.
I don't want to link to the kind of newspapers that report on European royal families, but the crown prince of Denmark takes his children to school/nursery by bicycle. (Last time I saw them, the oldest was riding her own bike.)
[1] https://www.sustainable-bus.com/electric-bus/copenaghen-purc...
Perhaps they do?
In Norway you're going to have a hard time finding a petrol or diesel car that fits the government requirements.
See §5: https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2017-12-11-1995/§5
In Norway you're going to have a hard time finding a petrol or diesel car that fits the government requirements.
See §5: https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2017-12-11-1995/§5
Why are buses exempt? Too cold for electric buses?
Oslo has six electric buses in use right now, and will add 70 more by next summer so electric is absolutely an option, but this is a pretty recent development. Much like Denmark none of the major parties here want to actually enforce the 2025 "ban" on fossil fuel cars either, so we can't really expect anything to happen to buses either (at the national level). On the local level the public transit in the Oslo metro area is planning to be fossil fuel free in 2020 and zero emission in 2028.
Not sure, probably the fact that they need to run all day without stopping to charge.
We have plenty of hybrid buses where I live though (in Norway).
We have plenty of hybrid buses where I live though (in Norway).
As with most things in life, it's not black-and-white... both are happening (although fleet vehicles tend to be more visible at the municipal level). You do still need national-level policy to set market certainty and reduce risk, though (a car maker is much more likely to invest in significant retooling if they're guaranteed a market for that retooling).
Even in the US, the USPS is experimenting with electric mail trucks: https://about.usps.com/what-we-are-doing/green/vehicles.htm
If the ban is the stick, the best return on the carrots would be increasing public charging infrastructure. SF runs chargers in front of city hall, for example.
Even in the US, the USPS is experimenting with electric mail trucks: https://about.usps.com/what-we-are-doing/green/vehicles.htm
If the ban is the stick, the best return on the carrots would be increasing public charging infrastructure. SF runs chargers in front of city hall, for example.
> Why not put your money were your mouth is
"Rules for thee and not for me"
The government is happy to tell everyone else what to do but when it comes time to buy their own vehicles they don't have to play by those rules so their decision making process does not reflect the presence those rules and they wind up buying ICE vehicles for the majority of use cases because from a strict numbers perspective those are what make sense in a majority of use cases.
"Rules for thee and not for me"
The government is happy to tell everyone else what to do but when it comes time to buy their own vehicles they don't have to play by those rules so their decision making process does not reflect the presence those rules and they wind up buying ICE vehicles for the majority of use cases because from a strict numbers perspective those are what make sense in a majority of use cases.
This is really the only, and best, solution. It's simple and clear. Car manufactures cannot get around it with their bag of tricks. Plus, 12 years is a long long time.
I'm guessing economies of scale will finish the job somewhere over the next decade already. If you operating any kind of vehicles commercially, eliminating fuel cost should be high on your agenda. Whether it is taxi's, buses, police vehicles, delivery vehicles, etc. For that kind of market what matters is the total cost of ownership. This is why many taxis were early adopters of hybrids. As soon as they become affordable enough, they'll be going full electric.
Currently battery cost and production volumes are the main limitation. As that improves, the market will gobble up whatever is being produced. This just puts the pressure on a bit more. 2030 is not even that ambitious.
Currently battery cost and production volumes are the main limitation. As that improves, the market will gobble up whatever is being produced. This just puts the pressure on a bit more. 2030 is not even that ambitious.
Seems like we need to see about 10K less capital cost, and/or less atrocious depreciation, and TCO should come into line with a comparable ICE. Solve that and maintain the range we've got in the latest crop of EVs, and I think they'll take over pretty steadily.
It's a step forward. However I'm surprised that the focus is still on individual cars, construction of an ev is still quite polluting.
I expected to see suggestions about increase in public transportation coverage and frequency to compensate, or maybe steps towards self-driven collective fleets (2030 seems ambitious).
I don't know Denmark, are public transportation already well developed? Or am I not cynical enough and it's just an economically driven decision?
I expected to see suggestions about increase in public transportation coverage and frequency to compensate, or maybe steps towards self-driven collective fleets (2030 seems ambitious).
I don't know Denmark, are public transportation already well developed? Or am I not cynical enough and it's just an economically driven decision?
Public transit is relatively well developed. We're a relatively small country, very flat and reasonably densely populated. Obviously public transport is most well-developed in the larger cities, with several expansions in progress.
But even rural areas are serviced by trains and bus lines. It may be slower in rural areas than taking the car, but you can make it work. At least you can do with one car per household instead of two.
But even rural areas are serviced by trains and bus lines. It may be slower in rural areas than taking the car, but you can make it work. At least you can do with one car per household instead of two.
Electro cars are great, until you start count.
Ok, if Denmark population is about 5.7M and based on aerostat (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...) there're around 500 cars per 1000 citizen. It means country holds ~2.5M cars right now.
In general (based on https://www.worlddata.info/europe/denmark/energy-consumption...) every Denmark's citizen consumes 20kh per day. 1 of 2 citizen has a car. Electro car charging requires 50kh (average electro car consumption). So It means Denmark must increase electric production in 5!!! times. In order just a charge those new 2.5M cars. I'm now talking about infrastructure requirements for this signigficant electric consumption increase, I'm pointing to the basic knowledge (by wikipedia) that around 50% of energy comes from coal and all renewable are less than 5%. COAL! MORE COAL I SAID!
Yes you need more electricity but that’s offset by reduced gasoline. And you lower your total energy consumption because electric cars are 3-4x as efficient.
Yes, this requires more energy infrastructure. But note that in the US the majority of new generation capacity added in the last few years has been renewable. And it’s not because we’ve passed any carbon tax, it’s because it’s now the most cost effective form. The bean counters love it.
And of that new generation capacity that is wind, the largest manufacturer of wind turbines is Vestas, a Danish company.
Yes, this requires more energy infrastructure. But note that in the US the majority of new generation capacity added in the last few years has been renewable. And it’s not because we’ve passed any carbon tax, it’s because it’s now the most cost effective form. The bean counters love it.
And of that new generation capacity that is wind, the largest manufacturer of wind turbines is Vestas, a Danish company.
LOL, no. Denmark used 67.5TWh gasoline and diesel fuel last year, due to better efficiency of the electric drivetrain it's equivalent to roughly 20TWh of electricity. Denmark also used 46TWh electricity last year, so they would need to increase their production by 43.5%. It's quite high actually, for Germany the same figure is just 31% (190TWh and 610TWh).
All data can be found here https://www.statbank.dk/ENE2HA.
That assumes that every car in Denmark will consume 50kwh per day. The 64kw Kona Electric will do 300 miles according to the WLTP [1]. So, that assumes every car does 234 miles every day, or over 85k miles per year.
I can't find any solid data, but I'd assume its closer to 10k miles per year, or an eighth of what you're suggesting. That is still a lot, but it is achievable especially with more offshore wind.
1. https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/kona-electric
I can't find any solid data, but I'd assume its closer to 10k miles per year, or an eighth of what you're suggesting. That is still a lot, but it is achievable especially with more offshore wind.
1. https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/kona-electric
Just look how much gasoline and diesel was sold. Anything else will give you tremendously wrong result.
The last coal plant in Denmark will be retired in 2028.
Current regulation requires large district heating to produce electricity (which is no longer economical due to abundance of cheap wind power) and this delays the conversion of the last coal plant.
Current regulation requires large district heating to produce electricity (which is no longer economical due to abundance of cheap wind power) and this delays the conversion of the last coal plant.
Good luck with that, especially with banning ultramodern, low emission, high performance diesel cars.
I was in Denmark last year to see what's going on over there and I observed the infrastructure very carefully: there is no widespread electric infrastructure for cars; it will be a gargantuan investment of epic proportions. Even if the infrastructure is put in, the current battery technology is only barely adequate for daily city driving. Everything else - forget it! So this is banking on future infrastructure improvement in batteries and recharging, and it's especially banking on invention of fast recharging. And it's assuming diesel engines and emissions will stand still, with no further improvements. Just wondering, Danes like to travel and they like to hitch a camping trailer to their cars and drive all over Europe; how will they be able to do that if their government bans sales of cars with internal combustion engines?
Whatever stuff that government is on, it's gotta be potent; I'd like some of whatever they're smoking.
I was in Denmark last year to see what's going on over there and I observed the infrastructure very carefully: there is no widespread electric infrastructure for cars; it will be a gargantuan investment of epic proportions. Even if the infrastructure is put in, the current battery technology is only barely adequate for daily city driving. Everything else - forget it! So this is banking on future infrastructure improvement in batteries and recharging, and it's especially banking on invention of fast recharging. And it's assuming diesel engines and emissions will stand still, with no further improvements. Just wondering, Danes like to travel and they like to hitch a camping trailer to their cars and drive all over Europe; how will they be able to do that if their government bans sales of cars with internal combustion engines?
Whatever stuff that government is on, it's gotta be potent; I'd like some of whatever they're smoking.
I’m a Dane, I have leased a 24kwh BEV a few years ago. The charging infrastructure is fine and it is getting better. Denmark is not that big. I had a 30km commute each way. I live in an apartment, so that means public charging, which was no problem. I got 99 km at 110km/h on a full charge which means a 60 kwh battery will take me between the two furthest points in Denmark on two quick charges.
The only parts that sucks about BEVs is that you can’t have a trailer attached and the price.
The only parts that sucks about BEVs is that you can’t have a trailer attached and the price.
The last gen diesels are about to be banned (e.g Stockholm and other cities eg in Germany). I expect Euro6 diesels to follow within 10 years and the number of cities with bans to grow.
Charging infrastructure needs to be expanded everywhere but that needs to happen regardless. The need will just be more acute. Also note most in Europe have 230V at home including a lot of places in the Nordic countries that have 230V at every parking space for multi tenant housing for car heaters. Those are very handy for an EV parked overnight.
The holiday issue is a real one. I drive a diesel that does 1000km in one go. I use that range in one day maybe 2-3 days per year during holidays. That would be impossible with an EV. I can get where I want but it would require a lot more planning and longer travels and recharge waits.
Charging infrastructure needs to be expanded everywhere but that needs to happen regardless. The need will just be more acute. Also note most in Europe have 230V at home including a lot of places in the Nordic countries that have 230V at every parking space for multi tenant housing for car heaters. Those are very handy for an EV parked overnight.
The holiday issue is a real one. I drive a diesel that does 1000km in one go. I use that range in one day maybe 2-3 days per year during holidays. That would be impossible with an EV. I can get where I want but it would require a lot more planning and longer travels and recharge waits.
> Even if the infrastructure is put in, the current battery technology is only barely adequate for daily city driving.
Barely adequate? We are reaching almost 500km on a charge now (around 300km is more common). This is Denmark we are talking about, not Russia.
> and it's especially banking on invention of fast recharging
You mean under 30 minutes? How often do you need that? Road trips?
Note that they are not banning hybrids, which will take care of your road trip needs just fine.
Barely adequate? We are reaching almost 500km on a charge now (around 300km is more common). This is Denmark we are talking about, not Russia.
> and it's especially banking on invention of fast recharging
You mean under 30 minutes? How often do you need that? Road trips?
Note that they are not banning hybrids, which will take care of your road trip needs just fine.
"You mean under 30 minutes? How often do you need that? Road trips?"
Of course and of course!
"Note that they are not banning hybrids,"
Yeah but hybrids suck: gasoline automatics, and except for the Volvo, ugly sedans. If there were more sportwagon diesel hybrids with manual transmissions, that'd be a different story, but there aren't and probably won't be.
And what will happen to car enthusiasts in Denmark if this legislature is enacted?
Of course and of course!
"Note that they are not banning hybrids,"
Yeah but hybrids suck: gasoline automatics, and except for the Volvo, ugly sedans. If there were more sportwagon diesel hybrids with manual transmissions, that'd be a different story, but there aren't and probably won't be.
And what will happen to car enthusiasts in Denmark if this legislature is enacted?
As an idealist I'm glad to see the world transition away from fossil fuels in any capacity.
As a "Car Guy" however, there is a small sadness that I won't really get to experience much of the internal combustion engine. I feel like I was born a decade too late and a lot too poor. Similar to some techies who feel the missed the early internet.
As a "Car Guy" however, there is a small sadness that I won't really get to experience much of the internal combustion engine. I feel like I was born a decade too late and a lot too poor. Similar to some techies who feel the missed the early internet.
Why the sadness? As a "Car Guy" I'm thrilled about electric! Instant torque and acceleration, way more responsive than ICE. Just the other month there was the story where an electric shattered all the previous Pikes Peak records: https://www.teslarati.com/vw-id-r-electric-vehicle-pikes-pea...
I mean, yeah, it doesn't have the same growl, but if you want raw performance, I'll take my spaceship whirl over rube goldberg-like thousands-of-tiny-explosions any day of the week.
I mean, yeah, it doesn't have the same growl, but if you want raw performance, I'll take my spaceship whirl over rube goldberg-like thousands-of-tiny-explosions any day of the week.
the growl / sound / smell. The ability to modify, upgrade, "wrench on a car on the weekend"
the ability to get beat on the track 1 weekend, drop a couple grand on new parts the next, then go back and beat them the following weekend.
car shows and seeing a super charged mustang or camaro or twin turbos or something completely different someone came up with an idea for and built.
the same way us programmers tinker and build stuff for the hell of it, is the same was us car guys build stuff and tinker for the hell of it. some take it seriously and go to track, some (me) just do it cause it's a nice break.
spending a day installing a new exhaust can be fun. playing with 240volts of batteries (or whatever it is, lol) (if theres anything to play with) - not so much i'm thinking, lol...
the ability to get beat on the track 1 weekend, drop a couple grand on new parts the next, then go back and beat them the following weekend.
car shows and seeing a super charged mustang or camaro or twin turbos or something completely different someone came up with an idea for and built.
the same way us programmers tinker and build stuff for the hell of it, is the same was us car guys build stuff and tinker for the hell of it. some take it seriously and go to track, some (me) just do it cause it's a nice break.
spending a day installing a new exhaust can be fun. playing with 240volts of batteries (or whatever it is, lol) (if theres anything to play with) - not so much i'm thinking, lol...
Sounds like when I early adopted digital photography. My friends with proper cameras told me how much there was to film grain, how they loved playing with chemicals and the rest of it. They sneered at my passion for digital photography claiming it was dull. Where are they now, on Instagram with an iPhone.
I see your point, but to be fair Kodak did bring film back. https://www.kodak.com/US/en/consumer/products/super8/super-8...
That's fair... the rube goldberg-like nature of ICE's means there's a lot more pieces you can swap in and out and continuously tweak, and a lot more opportunity for such after-market optimizations. There definitely is a kind of pride in building a machine that really is yours. I get that.
Do you think electrics just can't have such an aftermarket mod culture? I mean, yeah, it's not here now, but as the market matures...? ICE's have had custom ECU's that tweak timings for a while now, once the scale of batteries ramps up I'm sure people will find ways of discharging levels of power that the OEM considers warranty-voiding. You may not be able to put in a custom exhaust, but you'll certainly be able to move batteries around and experiment with different weight distributions. Instead of a custom intake manifold you can swap in front/rear motors with different HP's.
I mean, yeah, electric mod culture will probably more resemble edison's lab than a greasemonkey pit (and yeah, there's a danger that the Acme Motor won't work with the Emca Battery Pack because DMCA), but the opportunity to tweak your own machine will still be there I think, if maybe in a slightly different form and with different optimization parameters.
Do you think electrics just can't have such an aftermarket mod culture? I mean, yeah, it's not here now, but as the market matures...? ICE's have had custom ECU's that tweak timings for a while now, once the scale of batteries ramps up I'm sure people will find ways of discharging levels of power that the OEM considers warranty-voiding. You may not be able to put in a custom exhaust, but you'll certainly be able to move batteries around and experiment with different weight distributions. Instead of a custom intake manifold you can swap in front/rear motors with different HP's.
I mean, yeah, electric mod culture will probably more resemble edison's lab than a greasemonkey pit (and yeah, there's a danger that the Acme Motor won't work with the Emca Battery Pack because DMCA), but the opportunity to tweak your own machine will still be there I think, if maybe in a slightly different form and with different optimization parameters.
> the growl / sound / smell.
(I'll be pleased when none of these (or the pollution) is within a city, but that's not my main point.)
> Playing with 240 volts of batteries (or whatever it is, lol) (if there's anything to play with) - not so much I'm thinking, lol...
An engineer friend spends all his spare time tweaking an electric motorcycle. There's a lot to control in software, and although there are far fewer components than an ICE bike, he has gradually upgraded them, or will change them for a particular performance characteristic.
Maybe he could ask why you feel so safe with flammable liquids and toxic combustion products.
(Equally, some of my father's friends maintain, repair and operate steam locomotives. Needing a railway makes this far more difficult than for cars, but it's not too difficult to find a similar group in England.)
(I'll be pleased when none of these (or the pollution) is within a city, but that's not my main point.)
> Playing with 240 volts of batteries (or whatever it is, lol) (if there's anything to play with) - not so much I'm thinking, lol...
An engineer friend spends all his spare time tweaking an electric motorcycle. There's a lot to control in software, and although there are far fewer components than an ICE bike, he has gradually upgraded them, or will change them for a particular performance characteristic.
Maybe he could ask why you feel so safe with flammable liquids and toxic combustion products.
(Equally, some of my father's friends maintain, repair and operate steam locomotives. Needing a railway makes this far more difficult than for cars, but it's not too difficult to find a similar group in England.)
> An engineer friend spends all his spare time tweaking an electric motorcycle. There's a lot to control in software
While an electric motorcycle might have a fairly simple ECU, something like my Mustang is a bit more complex. While software and hardware to modify the ECU coding yourself is available, as well as the training for it, most in the community highly advise against DIY and paying a pro (which most of us do) to do it for you. $200 to let someone who "knows" what their doing vs 1 wrong value and you blow a rod or crack the block...
> Maybe he could ask why you feel so safe with flammable liquids and toxic combustion products.
It would probably turn into the same discussion I have with friends as to why I'm more comfortable doing electrical work in a house, vs doing plumbing work. I've accepted the risk that if I get electrocuted, it's just me being screwed, vs if I screw up a plumbing solder, I can flood an entire house. With gasoline, I know what precautions to take and avoid an explosion. Vs the voltage / amperage on a tesla style battery pack, yeah, check it with a volt meter and make sure everything is grounded properly - but accidents will still occur.
There are precautions to take on both sides; there's new education on both sides; etc... More than anything, maybe it just falls to nostalgia; working on cars with dad made me work on cars when I got older. I'm not opposed to electric cars - I quite welcome them as a fact - I have a step son who wants to be a diesel engineer mechanic and I told him, may all well find classes for electric motors and get into that / get a head start (hes 15). As dad got me into cars, maybe my step son gets me into electric motors...
While an electric motorcycle might have a fairly simple ECU, something like my Mustang is a bit more complex. While software and hardware to modify the ECU coding yourself is available, as well as the training for it, most in the community highly advise against DIY and paying a pro (which most of us do) to do it for you. $200 to let someone who "knows" what their doing vs 1 wrong value and you blow a rod or crack the block...
> Maybe he could ask why you feel so safe with flammable liquids and toxic combustion products.
It would probably turn into the same discussion I have with friends as to why I'm more comfortable doing electrical work in a house, vs doing plumbing work. I've accepted the risk that if I get electrocuted, it's just me being screwed, vs if I screw up a plumbing solder, I can flood an entire house. With gasoline, I know what precautions to take and avoid an explosion. Vs the voltage / amperage on a tesla style battery pack, yeah, check it with a volt meter and make sure everything is grounded properly - but accidents will still occur.
There are precautions to take on both sides; there's new education on both sides; etc... More than anything, maybe it just falls to nostalgia; working on cars with dad made me work on cars when I got older. I'm not opposed to electric cars - I quite welcome them as a fact - I have a step son who wants to be a diesel engineer mechanic and I told him, may all well find classes for electric motors and get into that / get a head start (hes 15). As dad got me into cars, maybe my step son gets me into electric motors...
"I've accepted the risk that if I get electrocuted, it's just me being screwed, vs if I screw up a plumbing solder, I can flood an entire house."
Whoever lives in the house could be more upset with your electrocution than with a flooded house, even if raw sewage was involved. That can be true even for strangers, and almost certainly for family members.
Whoever lives in the house could be more upset with your electrocution than with a flooded house, even if raw sewage was involved. That can be true even for strangers, and almost certainly for family members.
To be fair, it's quite likely you'll be able to keep doing all these things for a long time.
You may not be able to drive your ICE car to the track though, might have to trailer it.
You may not be able to drive your ICE car to the track though, might have to trailer it.
>You may not be able to drive your ICE car to the track though, might have to trailer it.
Owning vehicle you have to trailer to the track is kind of like owning guns and using them to hunt in England. Yeah you can do it but all the red tape and cost results in practically only the landed gentry being able to justify such a costly hobby.
That's really not the same.
Owning vehicle you have to trailer to the track is kind of like owning guns and using them to hunt in England. Yeah you can do it but all the red tape and cost results in practically only the landed gentry being able to justify such a costly hobby.
That's really not the same.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. A lot of track vehicles used today are dedicated, and not necessarily expensive.
Fundamentally there are difficult compromises to make a vehicle behave well on the street and track, after all - you can often be cheaper overall to have a daily driver and a track car/bike, and make fewer compromises. Also spend less of your time changing tires :)
Fundamentally there are difficult compromises to make a vehicle behave well on the street and track, after all - you can often be cheaper overall to have a daily driver and a track car/bike, and make fewer compromises. Also spend less of your time changing tires :)
Owning a trailer to move the vehicle means owning the storage for said vehicle, and a second vehicle that can tow. These are not minimal expenses where I can usually find work
Most automotive enthusiasts don't have track vehicles, most have street-able vehicles they take to the track (or whatever their preferred event is). This is even more true for 4x4s and drag racing.
Saying "well having a vehicle you trailer to the event is cheaper" assumes a baseline amount of money being spent that is more than most people have to dedicate to the hobby. That cuts out the entire low end of the hobby.
Saying "well having a vehicle you trailer to the event is cheaper" assumes a baseline amount of money being spent that is more than most people have to dedicate to the hobby. That cuts out the entire low end of the hobby.
I agree it cuts out the very low end, but there are a ton of people left that have either dedicated or nearly dedicated (e.g. road legal but never really used for anything else).
The lowest end of the hobby will change, obviously. Not convinced it will completely go away. I think my point was it isn't a crazy bump in expense to have a vehicle you play with only on the track, though it may not be the same vehicle.
And yes, it means you can't easily drive your hobby car out to a drag strip to see what it will do. Or a bunch of other things. But it doesn't mean there is no hobby to be had - at least I hope so.
4x4 is interesting, i hadn't considered but suspect that will be under more pressure than track days.
The lowest end of the hobby will change, obviously. Not convinced it will completely go away. I think my point was it isn't a crazy bump in expense to have a vehicle you play with only on the track, though it may not be the same vehicle.
And yes, it means you can't easily drive your hobby car out to a drag strip to see what it will do. Or a bunch of other things. But it doesn't mean there is no hobby to be had - at least I hope so.
4x4 is interesting, i hadn't considered but suspect that will be under more pressure than track days.
I'm no gearhead, but the Zombie222 looks good to me, and it's made by a tinkerer.
Well seeing as being a hobbyist mechanic and a hobbyist electrician aren't even in the same ballpark, it's not hard to see how interest in the internal combustion engine does not transfer.
Oh yeah, the growl. The constant reminder that your gas is being spent to generate sound waves, not to propel the car.
The enjoyable cars and the context where they are driven e.g. tracks, events, may not change that much.
The boring utilitarian combustion engines the large majority of humanity has ever experienced probably won't be missed, though. Boring cars were still boring a decade ago.
The boring utilitarian combustion engines the large majority of humanity has ever experienced probably won't be missed, though. Boring cars were still boring a decade ago.
People still ride horses for fun. Fossil fuel cars will be around for a lot longer after the ban on sales is in place even if people are just driving them around for kicks (...assuming they are not totally banned from running entirely eventually due to emissions - I cant see that happening for a while though)
While few people still use horses for transportation there are many people who still have horses as a hobby and they are readily available with many places to take them. I suspect internal combustion cars will remain in a similiar hobby niche. There will be mechanics, race tracks, drag strips, etc for a while.
Except that people can still breed horses which keeps the cost of horse riding reasonable.
In contrast it will no longer be legal to manufacture and sell ICE cars, and so the price of these cars will go up as demand outgrows supply, making it financially unattainable for all but the rich.
In contrast it will no longer be legal to manufacture and sell ICE cars, and so the price of these cars will go up as demand outgrows supply, making it financially unattainable for all but the rich.
As a car guy also - I've thought about this... also.
Best plan is pick a few "classics" be it 60s muscle cars or current muscle cars, and buy them before they hit scrap yards or are destroyed.
Not an easy thing to do of course - cost of car, storage, restoration if it's old, but they can be saved and kept as toys.
Restoring a 60s camaro has always been a dream of mine.
Best plan is pick a few "classics" be it 60s muscle cars or current muscle cars, and buy them before they hit scrap yards or are destroyed.
Not an easy thing to do of course - cost of car, storage, restoration if it's old, but they can be saved and kept as toys.
Restoring a 60s camaro has always been a dream of mine.
[deleted]
I have a hard time believing that the vast majority of cars won't already be 100% electric by then. Also, I doubt there will be nearly as many personal cars and that there will be much more ride sharing and public transportation options.
Isn't Denmark the country that taxes new car purchases 120% of the price of the car already? I don't think they're a good indicator of the overall attitude of the EU.
yes, and you were close with 120% but it was recently reduced to 180% from somewhere north of that
Not quite.
It used to be 180% for the high tier, 105% for the low tier. I don't know the cutover points used back then.
Today, it's 85% for the low tier (below ~190K DKK) and 150% for the high tier above that. The cutover point will increase to account for inflation and such.
It used to be 180% for the high tier, 105% for the low tier. I don't know the cutover points used back then.
Today, it's 85% for the low tier (below ~190K DKK) and 150% for the high tier above that. The cutover point will increase to account for inflation and such.
This is great. I don't think we in the US realize how far ahead European countries are wrt EV. Their governments are working like startups to make this happen. Even if only cars get replaced (and not trucks or heavy vehicles), that's a huge boost.
Further, I think the biggest gains of this are in emerging countries like SE asia, India etc. where the cost of oil fuel is much higher than the US. The market size willing to ride on this tech is insane.
Further, I think the biggest gains of this are in emerging countries like SE asia, India etc. where the cost of oil fuel is much higher than the US. The market size willing to ride on this tech is insane.
This is a solid move. Better air quality and smaller chance of natural disasters benefits us all.
denmark is the size of bayarea. Yes, they can move to electric cars, because a tesla will NOT run out of battery by travelling all over the country.
OTOH, do they even need cars? Why can't denmark just use public transportation and abolish cars altogether?
OTOH, do they even need cars? Why can't denmark just use public transportation and abolish cars altogether?
Rural areas are neither economical nor convenient for public transportation.
because public transportation in Denmark basically costs the same as owning a small car
Coal price will rise. Oil will fall. Gas'll rise.
Incredibly dumb move. CO2 is our friend, not an enemy.
Atsushi Horiba seems to think this is rubbish.
Does he have a point?
Does he have a point?
2030 is ages away, try 2020.
Out of curiosity, are you the kind of person who complains if Google shuts down a free product with less than a 1 year heads up?
I wonder how some HN commenters would do at being head of state, sometimes. The bar seems to have lowered lately anyway.
Edit: just to clarify and be less dismissive: Banning things everyone uses with little homework is a great way to fail at it. Since this is a tech forum, you can think of it kinda like upgrading your language, framework, kernel and landing a massive refactor, all at once, in production, without testing. It's like that, except you have tens-to-hundreds of millions of users, and their lives are at stake.
Bans take time, otherwise they're not effective. Besides, if they had announced 2020, I'm nearly certain the parent comment would ask for 2019.
I wonder how some HN commenters would do at being head of state, sometimes. The bar seems to have lowered lately anyway.
Edit: just to clarify and be less dismissive: Banning things everyone uses with little homework is a great way to fail at it. Since this is a tech forum, you can think of it kinda like upgrading your language, framework, kernel and landing a massive refactor, all at once, in production, without testing. It's like that, except you have tens-to-hundreds of millions of users, and their lives are at stake.
Bans take time, otherwise they're not effective. Besides, if they had announced 2020, I'm nearly certain the parent comment would ask for 2019.
Bans like this are unlawful and should be countered by a revolution.
[deleted]
Don't forget that car companies plan years ahead. Setting an end-date like this brings the subject on the table of the car companies' board rooms.
And setting an impossible to implement date of 2020 is a great way to ensure they donate their money to whoever's running against you.
Then, you have a much bigger problem to solve (your campaign finance system). This looks like corruption to me but I'm no US citizen.
How do you solve your campaign finance system issues if you're not in power because, when you are, all you do is piss people off by banning their cars with little to no heads up?
"Why don't government simply act without any regard for reality?" is just a weird question to ask.
"Why don't government simply act without any regard for reality?" is just a weird question to ask.
Virtually nobody buys new cars in Denmark because of the taxes anyway, and even if they did, it's a very small country (~5M) and would only account for a very small percentage of global sales. I doubt the subject of Denmark come up in automobile companies' board rooms at all outside of a small footnote on the occasional pie chart.
I've come around though. I think all the bastardized carbon accounting, market based solutions are on average quite bad. The idea of a neutral, "market decides" policy is a myth. These things are complex, and that compmexity is an opportunity for regulatory capture.
For example, most European vehicle tax codes have been altered to reflect emissions.
The upshot is that (1) new vehicles are 20% ish more efficient (2) older vehicles become uneconomical faster (3) people who drive older vehicles clear pay more tax. (4) Switching from a 10yr old ICE hatchback to a new one can easily save you $500 pa. Going from a new "efficient" ICE to an electric will save you a fraction of that.
New car buyers pay less tax, old cars pay more. Vehicles hit junkyards faster. Manufacturers sell more cars. Over a decade we'll see a minor (maybe 20% at best) decrease in carbon emissions.
Very little environmental juice for a lot of poor and middle class squeeze. A nice little sales boost for VW.
There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of an outright ban. Ban ICEs. Ban commercial fishing. It worked for CFCs and market hunting. In retrospect, no one wishes we had split hairs with a complicated policy.