I turns out that Norway is an exception alright … though not in the way you might expect:
That stricks me as Misusing stats in every way possible. Comparing Norway to Europe during a massive economic crisis is rediculous. It would also not take account of the fact that Norway is an oil producing nation. Have other countries been slow to remove oil fired generators. Has there been any movement towards diesel?
That means that manufacturers have just over 20 years to shift their entire production to EVs.
What are you talking about? Europe is not having a massive economic crisis, but in any case the countries mentioned were all the Nordic ones. Norway’s nearest neighbouring economy, Sweden has had mostly positive economic growth for decades and is in the midst of a housing bubble. Oil fired generators??? – practically nobody generates electricity from oil, least of oil Norway which uses 99% hydropower. And diesel is made from oil, so can’t see any relevance.
Sweden has falling oil consumption form the late 1990s
indexmundi.com/energy/?coun … onsumption
Norway hasnt really budged. Peaking in 2007
indexmundi.com/energy/?coun … onsumption
Oil fired generators were in use in countries up until the mid 2000s - If nordic countries exNorway used them and phased them out then they would see a drop in oil usage compared to Norway. As you rightly said, Norway has used hydro for a long time. not much hydro in Denmark.
Diesel uses less oil so if you move from petrol to diesel then your usage would fall. Diesel usage is actually less in norway compared to other nordic countries . it might only be a minor difference but never the less
From a 2006 policy document
Ill grant the economy of Sweden is doing OK . You cant say the same for Finland or the EU. It probably isnt the reason to for the differential in oil consumption.
My main point was the article was disingenuous in comparing fuel consumption between 2005 - present and electric cars. Im not wrong there.
You’re right you know.
The economy of the EU is not doing okay.
It`s doing great!
politico.eu/article/uk-econo … performer/
Sweden’s oil consumption has been going down since the 1970s. Norway’s has being going up. Sweden’s electricity generation is mainly from hydropower, nuclear and renewables including biofuels. About 10% involves combined heat and power. Sweden’s oil consumption per capita was already substantially lower than Norway’s in 2006 and has trended the opposite direction to Norway’s. Sweden does have a higher proportion of diesels than the EU average but that is not new. The main change in Sweden is stringent CO2 emssions-based car taxes which have result in declining proportions of Volvo and Saab gas guzzlers.
Btw, the whole kerfuffle about Norway supposedly banning petrol and diesel cars from 2025 was nonsense. The story was picked up by US news media because of a tweet from Elon Musk. The Norwegian government themselves say they haven’t agreed such a measure.
One of our rags is front paging a story about smelly Brit diesels being dumped over here tomorrow.
We are in for another sudden oil price spike because the US is about to make it impossible to buy Venezuelan oil from next monday and that will ‘de’ transact around 1m barrels a day from the global market effective immediately…unless of course you can pay Venezuela in Euros.
Any reason why something like that wouldn’t work?
Why aren’t there loads of aftermarket hybrid kits?
Looks neat! Would need to get a bit cheaper in order to become a no-brainer that paid for itself in a couple of years.
At $3,000, I’d have it done.
Even with a very light foot, I only manage about 22-24mpg.
But I’d demand the government reduce my road tax.
Not going to happen. No different from the plan rolled out by the Air Resources Board in California in the early 1990’s to ban the sale of all petrol cars in the state before 2014. We all know how well that went. Still 97% plus petrol driven cars. And the other < 3% only sell due to massive tax payer subsidies.
Now I would be interested to know if the diesel “pollution” studies used to make this announcement are the same ones used by CARB about a decade ago when they announced they were going to defacto ban all diesel vehicles in California within 20 years by making the emission standards so stringent no diesel engine could possibly pass? The studies (a study of studies) that turned out to be lead by a guy with a fraudulent graduate degree. Whose conclusions were later proved to be erroneous and unsupported by the data in the original field studies.
In other words, just more Green Lysenkoism “science”.
And where is the extra electricy for these EV’s to come from when the winds not blowing and the suns not out. Why, here. Massive small diesel generator farms. I’ll let the Guardian tell the story.
Actually the situation is far far worse than the Guardian lets on. They are replacing very clean coal power gens with very large numbers of small diesel stand-by generators at huge expense. Which spew out large amounts of real pollutants every time they are switched on and off.
When will this utter stupidity ever end.
here`s another one
hmmmn the road test for another conversion is interesting and the comments on charge times for a DIY job
I’d say it’s very different.
We’re now talking about proven technology, as opposed to the fantasy that was the 1990’s declaration.
California did this to spur on developments in the EV market, something it succeeded in doing.
EV is happening very rapidly.
Far faster than people think.
The change is real, permanent and coming faster by the day.
This is not 1990’s California.
Taking extreme figures you could be right. At 40 miles per day in traffic for 200 days, at 24 mpg you’d use about 1,500 litres of fuel per annum. If you save half that and we assume your electricity is free, the saving is nearly €1,000/year. Though personally I already get 55 mpg from the demon diesel in mixed driving so I’d advise you to get one while they’re still legal.
My road tax is €1,090 per annum.
If we reduced this by 50%, there’s another €545 saving.
Everytime I fill up, I curse myself for not buying a diesel.
But everytime I want a bit of performance ‘fun’, it brings a smile to my face.
Well I remember the first time I was stuck behind one of these…
…on an on-ramp onto 101 in Menlo Park in 1996. Cost a fortune and handled like shit. In the intervening two decades they have just about doubled the real world between charge range and the cost of the battery pack has tripled. After spending many many billions of dollars. You can now drive from San Francisco to San Jose and back on one charge. Well whoop de doo. Those billions were well spent. I can drive pretty much from SF to LA and back on one tank of gas. And they have these things called gas stations along the way where I can add almost another 600 miles to the range in less than 10 mins.
Last years EV market share was just over 1%. This years might break 3%. Maybe. But kill the subsides and market share would be around .2%. Probably. Apart from rich people who sold their Porsche Panameras to buy a Tesla I really have not seen much of a change in the EV driver demographic over the last two decades. It still basically a car for cranks and narcissists
In 1996 the price of gas was around $1.70, about 30c of that was tax. Today gas is around $2.70, about 80c of that is tax. Almost 40c of that to subsidize, directly and indirectly, scams like EVs. Another 40c of the price is to pay for whatever CARB’s insane gas formulation is this year. Most of the summer formulation additives are still to deal with an emissions problem in engines that were last manufactured 30 years ago.
So in nominal terms the wholesale price of gas is about what it was 20 years. In real terms less than half the price.
So exactly what real world problems do EV’s actually solve? Apart from lining the pockets of special interests selling snake oil.
The proverbial peak is within sight.
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/smilies/gaah.gif Where will the electricity come from?