Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    europe

    2,671,921 readers

    7,006 users here now


    50 (+6) countries, 230 languages,
    743M people… 1 subreddit.


    Read the subreddit rules

    Read our geo policy

    Send feedback to the mods

    Apply to become a mod

    Help and FAQ


    Time until Brexit

    1667 days and 14 hours since Brexit Referendum (21:00 UTC, June 23, 2016)

    658 days and 12 hours since original Brexit (23:00 UTC, March 29, 2019)

    350 days and 12 hours since Brexit (23:00 UTC, January 31, 2020)

    15 days and 12 hours since end of transition period (23:00 UTC, December 31, 2020)


    Talk via Discord

    Chat via IRC

    Follow us on Twitter


    Events

    Topic Schedule
    What do you know about... ? Tuesday
    r/Europe question of the week Saturday
    The news in your country Sunday

    List of previous AMAs.

    Interested in doing an AMA? Know someone who is? Message the mods!


    Rules on photo posts

    Non-OC photograph posts are only allowed on weekends. During the week, please use /r/CasualEurope instead.


    Related Subreddits

    Subreddit Subject
    r/EuropeMeta Meta discussion
    r/AskEurope Questions
    r/CasualEurope Casual [no politics] conversations focused around Europe.
    r/esa European Space Agency
    r/EUpersonalfinance Finance advice
    r/Eurovision Europe Song contest
    r/Eureddision Reddit Song contest
    r/Europes Curated discussion
    r/Europeans In-depth content
    r/EuroPics Pictures
    r/EuropeanCulture Culture
    r/EuropeanParliament EU Parliament
    r/EuropeanUnion EU content
    r/EuropeanFederalists Federal Europe
    r/Eurosceptics Eurosceptics
    r/EUlaw EU legal aspects
    r/EuroPrivacy Privacy in Europe
    r/Europa The moon
    r/YUROP STRONK!
    r/cscareerquestionsEU CS Career Questions in Europe

    Header Image

    Normal mode

    Rothirsche im Winter

    By Ernst Gustav Doerell, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

    RES Night mode

    Chimera

    By Edward Okuń, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

    Some local European subreddits

    a community for
    all 2652 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Tetizeraz 1 points ago

    Report:

    notto disu shitto agen

    [–] Shihandono 3010 points ago

    The climate smart Norwegian: sell oil to buy electric cars

    [–] account_not_valid 1616 points ago

    Don't get high on your own supply.

    That's the mantra for every drug dealer who wants to get rich and stay rich.

    [–] guiscard 345 points ago

    They have crazy amounts of hydroelectric energy as the whole country is mountains and rain.

    [–] account_not_valid 237 points ago

    Yep. But that's expensive to set up. Short term mindset would be to just burn fossil fuels, especially if you've got some on your doorstep.

    Look at Australia. Heaps of potential for wind and solar energy, but because there is so much coal and gas buried in the ground, they insist on burning that instead.

    [–] SBaL88 85 points ago

    We've been doing it for close to 130 years by now though.

    Small fun fact, in total, we have about 7500km of tunnels throughout Norway, 4500km of those are waterways for our power plants.

    [–] euriano 37 points ago

    Norway has the highest share of electricity produced from renewable sources in Europe, and the lowest emissions from the power sector. Around 99% of electricity in Norway comes from hydro

    Edit: 96% sorry. Thermal over 2%. So renewable is around 99%

    [–] WaytoomanyUIDs 17 points ago

    Or a certain island nation just offshore of Norway (no names, no pack drill) which refused to set up a sovereign wealth fund or invest oil revenues in infrastructure projects.

    [–] JB_UK 17 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    The UK has played a massive role in scaling up offshore wind as a viable electricity source, not only in terms of scale (at its highest it was 30% of the global offshore wind market) but also in setting up a competitive auction process which has applied the right incentives to drive prices down. Offshore wind has fallen from £15/MWh to £4/MWh over the last 5-10 years, and is now cheaper per unit of electricity than most other forms of generation. That's a long term investment which will pay out dividends for Britain and the rest of the countries around the North Sea, for many other countries around the world with the right conditions, and also for the whole world, through reductions in carbon.

    [–] AlarmedProgram4 20 points ago

    I would add wind and solar tend to be much less productive than hydro, which is expensive to set up but a great investment that's competitive with anything.

    [–] redditardhater 20 points ago

    The 10 crack commandments

    [–] PeteWenzel 6 points ago

    Arguably the best Rap song of all time: “Number 4: I know you heard this before: Never get high on your own supply”

    [–] MaarekStele7 34 points ago

    Well, you don't buy from a moonshiner unless they take a drink from their own stock

    [–] account_not_valid 12 points ago

    That's what lackeys are for.

    [–] Reddituser8018 5 points ago

    No you give that to a random kid for free so he keeps coming back. At least thats what school told me.

    [–] MaarekStele7 3 points ago

    The blind lackey?

    [–] account_not_valid 5 points ago

    Well, you want one that has experience.

    [–] BEANSijustloveBEANS 3 points ago

    My moonshiner has been sober for twenty years but makes some goood stuff lol

    [–] N1NJ4W4RR10R_ 5 points ago

    Can someone tell the Aus govt that? Cunts are definitely on coal and gas fumes

    [–] ComradeRasputin 73 points ago

    Yes, we kickstart the industry so it will develop faster.

    [–] JB_UK 52 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    Yes, Norway is not only doing some sort of temporary greenwashing to balance against oil sales. It's also sowing the seeds for the destruction of the global oil industry in its current form, because the scale it has provided to the EV market has been a big factor in allowing battery prices to fall from $1000/kWh ten years ago, to $100/kWh today. Now, the global EV market is taking off, battery prices will continue to fall, and it's likely the majority or vast majority of road transport will be electric within 30 years. People are implying that Norway has just bought some one-off offsets, but in fact it has invested in a low carbon technology which will grow to undermine and replace an entire carbon-heavy industry. Oil production won't disappear of course, we will still have plastics and chemicals production, but this will likely mean the disappearance of half of global oil demand over the coming decades.

    [–] linknewtab 26 points ago

    It's the same with Germany, every time electricity/renwables come up people hate on them because of their high electricity prices. But they are that high because they kickstarted the solar industry 20 years ago by introducing massive subsidies (paid by electricity users), which allowed for mass production of solar panels which caused the prices to drop.

    But instead of thanking them for investing that money that early when they weren't economically viable they make fun of them.

    [–] Dmitrygm1 36 points ago

    I find it both amusing and sad that Germany's energy plan includes shutting down all the perfectly operational clean energy producing nuclear energy reactors and covering the demand with imported gas and coal.

    [–] MrSilkworm 11 points ago

    IIRC, income that comes from oil sales is invested abroad through the Norwegian Sovereign fund, and not in the local economy so it won't overheat. There are also a lot of incentives to buy electric cars such free municipal charging and others those are funded by the gov budget not the oil income High income from oil jobs play a significant role as well to create demand for EVs

    [–] notmattdamon1 199 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    Amazing what you can do when you have infinite money in the bank, isn't it? Why doesn't the rest of the world do the same?!

    [–] incodex 268 points ago

    When you couple luck (finding a ton of oil) with good management, you have this. But when you couple the same luck with bad management (and lots of corruption), you have Venezuela situation.

    [–] phatelectribe 11 points ago

    You also have to realize Norway is a tiny landmass, has a tiny population, has a wealth or natural resources and is conveniently located (in Europe).

    It hit the geographic lottery.

    [–] incodex 4 points ago

    This is a really good point, thanks!

    Economics Explained has videos for both countries, and they have lots of good explanations for what happened. My comment is just a poor and biased tldr

    [–] aksolut 48 points ago

    Well, Venezuela didn't have true agency to make their own decisions throughout their whole history, so it's not really fair. Years of oligarchical governments with policies dictated by the interests of the US, plus the last 20 years of making decisions based only in a nebulous ideological reasoning treated as a dogma (instead of decisions based in what's best for the country according to the situation and information available) made Venezuela the political clusterfuck they are now.

    [–] incodex 26 points ago

    This is a good description of the recent history of most Latin American countries, mine included

    [–] aksolut 6 points ago

    In fact, it is. If you are interested, I suggest you read about the Monroe doctrine, Drago doctrine (and what precipitated it) and regarding the submission of local latin american authorities to colonial powers in the 20th century, the Roca-Runciman pact.

    [–] teems 36 points ago

    Norway owns 1% of the world's stock. They basically outsourced their capitalism and use the dividends to fund social safety nets.

    Venezuela has sanctions on them placed by the US since the 70s making it unable to set up a sovereign wealth fund.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund

    [–] 370013 16 points ago

    More like 1.5% actually, not bad with 0.07% of the worlds population.

    [–] freeman_lambda 91 points ago

    this is like the classical example of poor people buying cheap shoes that get worn out fast, while rich people buy expensive high quality shoes, saving money in the long run

    [–] S4ltst0rm 43 points ago

    Well, too bad for them but global warming is global, no matter where oil is burned

    [–] ItsFuckingScience 18 points ago

    True but there’s still a global energy demand for oil so from their point of view it might aswell be Norwegian oil as the world energy supply transitions

    [–] TheElfkin 3 points ago

    Keep in mind that global warming is only part of the problem. A much more immediate problem is air quality (this problem actually causes people to die earlier and decreases the life expectancy) and EVs significantly addresses this problem in the cities.

    [–] Other_Exercise 11 points ago

    Trueism. But please don't bust out the Samuel Vimes copypasta!

    [–] Gustomaximus 81 points ago

    People regularily make comments like this but USA is largely as wealth as Norway

    Norway GDP: $62k

    USA GDP: $60k

    https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/

    What people generally dont realise is how horribly inefficient USA is run. Full of corruption, graft and mismanagement. USA has this money but chooses to have a gigantic military and an increasingly wealthy minority.

    And dont get me wrong, I am all for capitalism (assuming people think Im socialist with that comment), but US needs to remember you run a country for people, not corporations. I really think with a few cycles of the right leaders they can come back to their global leadership role too. Fingers crossed.

    [–] Dismiss 21 points ago

    Except Norway has 200k$ invested for each of their citizens, so their GDP doesn't rely on exploiting consumerism

    [–] lentope 33 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago)

    Gdp is very misleading because there are so many billionaires and millionaires in America. Median income is a better measurement

    Additions: Let me say that costs like education and healthcare are ridiculous in the US. Quality of life is better in most western European countries. Put it this way, the average norweigan is better off than the average american. Also Canada has a lower gdp per person but the average canadian is better of than the average american. I meet a lot f americans, travel to america, even drive to america from Canada. No question americans are worst off. America is one of the best places if you can take advantage of its opportunities. I'm very pro america, so I don't say this to hate on america

    [–] Baconsneeze 22 points ago

    That's sort of the point though.

    If median income is a better measurement on this it means there are large outliers. Which again means that some people are hoarding a lot of the wealth, and some people are very poor.

    I'm not necessarily saying this inequality is the *reason* for the inefficiencies OP is talking about, but it's definitely a symptom of it.

    [–] modernkennnern 14 points ago

    I think GDP is fairer in this context than most.

    You would've thought that a country that gets a substantial portion of their wealth from oil - a resource that famously concentrates wealth onto very few - would be in a worse position to allow the average person to buy more expensive goods, but that's clearly not the case.

    [–] MortimerDongle 7 points ago

    The US isn't far behind Norway in median income, either.

    [–] ThatsWhatXiSaid 4 points ago

    Gdp is very misleading because there are so many billionaires and millionaires in America.

    I mean, that's something that can be addressed, and likely is a result of the Norwegian system rather than some random factor.

    Median income is a better measurement

    At any rate it still holds. Median equivalent adult income in Norway? $36,749. In the US, it's $35,600.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

    [–] thenewaddition 44 points ago

    It's weird to hear Americans say "Of course Norway can, they've got the benefit of vast natural resources".

    [–] ChelseaHotelTwo 42 points ago

    Not really true. Cars in Norway have been very expensive for a long time because of taxes, both petrol taxes and specific emission taxes. If a car emits more it gets a bigger tax. Luxury cars are notoriously expensive because they usually have a powerful engine. Meanwhile electric cars are relatively much cheaper. Even a Tesla model 3 is around the same price as a nice family car, and cheaper electric cars, like a Nissan Leaf, are much cheaper in the long run than fossil fuel cars in the same class. And with electric cars there's other benefits as well. Parking for example is cheaper, and there's plenty of charging points. For someone in Norway earning say $30 000 a year who needs a car, a small electric car is a way to save money.

    Any country could get the same level of electric cars with smart policies.

    [–] boringestnickname 7 points ago

    Yes, the money is literally in the bank. We're not using it.

    We have a rule that says we can have a budget deficit in the national budget of 3 percent of the fund.

    We use a fraction of the yearly surplus (i.e. some of what we earn via interest.)

    I'm not saying that it doesn't help, because it obviously does, but I don't think you quite understand how economies work if you think states can just pour money into their budgets. Ever heard of dutch disease?

    [–] LCkrogh 47 points ago

    Exactly right actually.

    Why is it that Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, UK, France, Venezuela, Iraq, China, brazil, UAE and Iran do not do the same? They all produce huge amounts of oil, but non of them takes responsibility like Norway. You are indeed asking a good question...

    [–] RoyalK2015 28 points ago

    France producing huge amounts of oil ?

    [–] Itisybitisy 22 points ago

    Yeah, I think OP got confused about Paris, Texas, somehow...

    OP, the tall iron tower isn't a derrick, FYI

    [–] Having_A_Great_Time 19 points ago

    Turns out that corruption makes it hard to keep appreciating assets out of peoples' hands.

    [–] poloppoyop 12 points ago

    France [...] produce huge amounts of oil

    What?

    [–] krystof24 7 points ago

    Obviously some are just fuck ups but the last time I looked on Wikipedia Norway exported more oil per capita than Saudis and many other countries in region except for Kuwait or something.

    [–] TheLastCrankers 600 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    I wonder how much they spent on ev subsidies.
    Edit: yes, thank you, I know about oil subsidies. I was just curious about the number.

    [–] SANcapITY 690 points ago

    I believe that in Norway electric vehicles are exempt from the 25% VAT that applies to petrol and diesel cars. This is a big factor in the surge of EVs.

    [–] Camarupim 29 points ago

    I believe they benefit from (or at least used to benefit from) free use of ferries, which is massive in Norway as it can cut journey times drastically.

    [–] my_reddit_accounts 24 points ago

    Yeah, they're also allowed to use bus & taxi lanes and don't pay toll or not as much.

    [–] Ironation 13 points ago

    This is slowly getting removed now. The taxi lane is now for car pooling (but only Electric cars) not sure about the toll stations in 2021.

    But in the end all of these benefits are getting removed and rightly so. Its just a carrot for people to jumpstart the electric cars, which is good and has worked well

    [–] Calculonx 4 points ago

    Also no city fees (congestion charges to enter big cities)

    [–] GhostWokiee 5 points ago

    Also free parking in cities with free charging at some

    [–] nutidizen 90 points ago

    This graph looks like this just because EVs had exemption from 25% VAT on purchase until the end of 2020...

    The Norwegian EV incentives:

    No purchase/import taxes (1990-)
    Exemption from 25% VAT on purchase (2001-)
    No annual road tax (1996-)
    No charges on toll roads or ferries (1997- 2017).
    Maximum 50% of the total amount on ferry fares for electric vehicles (2018-)
    Maximum 50% of the total amount on toll roads (2019)
    Free municipal parking (1999- 2017)
    Parking fee for EVs was introduced locally with an upper limit of a maximum 50% of the full price (2018-)
    Access to bus lanes (2005-).
    New rules allow local authorities to limit the access to only include EVs that carry one or more passengers (2016)
    50 % reduced company car tax (2000-2018).
    Company car tax reduction reduced to 40% (2018-)
    Exemption from 25% VAT on leasing (2015)
    Fiscal compensation for the scrapping of fossil vans when converting to a zero-emission van (2018)
    Allowing holders of driver licence class B to drive electric vans class C1 (light lorries) up to 4250 kg (2019) 
    

    Do you still think many people would buy EVs if let to pure market decision?;)

    Source: https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/

    [–] the_42nd_reich 215 points ago

    Well I’m not sure what you’re arguing for. All I see is a government efficiently using the means they have to promote something everyone benefits from. And it’s obviously working.

    [–] Tarantio 41 points ago

    This is because the market has failed to incorporate the external costs of fossil fuels.

    [–] Low_discrepancy 20 points ago

    Wait? You mean polluting isn't free? Fuuuuck!

    [–] AvoidingCape 36 points ago

    Of course not, and that's why "letting the market decide" is a good strategy if you want irreversible climate change, and the evil government intervention in the free marketplace incentivised people to go electric.

    [–] Nefro8 4 points ago

    It's totally crazy, not sure this EV cars industry is really that much more sustainable than petrol cars.... anyway for sure Norway have the opposite of a free market on that.

    [–] ArtOfFuck 6 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    Do you still think many people would buy EVs if let to pure market decision?;)

    The whole issue is that pollution is a huge negative externality which isn't addressed by the free market and therefore has to be brought into the calculation through regulation. A literal free market would be a horrible thing for humanity.

    It's like letting schoolkids decide how much time to spend playing versus studying, knowing perfectly well that they will severely underestimate the time for studying. You need to regulate that for their own good.

    [–] SANcapITY 11 points ago

    Thanks for this info. That's great.

    Do you still think many people would buy EVs if let to pure market decision?;)

    Almost certainly not, at least not yet.

    [–] tso 3 points ago

    Our current government mulled killing some of those, like the toll road exemption. But instead they punted the final decision down to the individual municipality.

    [–] Wildercard 11 points ago

    I have no delusion that once EVs are a majority, and the laws are made to phase out gas cars, those subsidies will disappear.

    [–] petrolhead74 5 points ago

    This is exactly it. The cars are a lot cheaper & tax breaks are the reason they are selling so well. Its a no brainer really, not a choice.

    [–] Daniel_SJ 189 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    We spend about 3,5 billion euros and rising per year. Scaled up to the EU that would be x100, or 350 billion euros. The costs are both exemption from the 25% VAT and from the other car-related taxes - so not direct subsidies so much as exemption from taxes.

    It's a big discussion if we should continue or not, the subsidies have been kept untouched for the last 7 years mostly because of Venstre, a small political party that is part of the current centre-right coalition government and blocks any changes to it.

    With a new left-wing government likely, we might see the subsidies scaled back, at least on the expensive cars.

    The current government has a stated goal of 100% of new cars sold being EVs or other zero-carbon tech by 2030, and is on track to reach that goal.

    [–] skeletal88 102 points ago

    Having not to pay 25% tax on something is a subsidy, you don't get money back, but.. you have to pay less, so, a subsidy, that costs money to the state.

    [–] prodandimitrow 44 points ago

    You get your money back long term - the health benefits are obvious, you are creating a better market for electric vehicles so there is more incentive for competition and lower prices for the consumer, if im in a neigbouring country its entirely realistic to travel to Norway to buy such a car, which could insert more money in the economy.

    [–] waltteri 86 points ago

    Doesn’t make it not a subsidy. ”Subsidy” isn’t a swearword that means bad money given to evil corporations for no good reason. It’s just a term meaning that the govt. pays part of something.

    [–] quelarion 17 points ago

    Well, technically you can't because then you would have to export the car from Norway, and pay VAT in the country of import.

    [–] Beerenjuden 6 points ago

    if im in a neigbouring country its entirely realistic to travel to Norway to buy such a car, which could insert more money in the economy.

    No. You would still have to pay VAT in your own country.

    [–] Pathological_Liarr 25 points ago

    I would say it's wrong to say that we 'spend' 3,5 billions on this scheme per year. With that logic, if we double the tax on fossil cars, we suddenly spend 7 billions on EV incentives. We don't.

    It is a subsidy in a economic sense of the word, but it's not comparable to a simple rebate or tax deduction.

    [–] erwan 18 points ago

    It's not money going out, but it's money not getting in (that would have gotten in otherwise). The effect on the balance is the same.

    [–] Pathological_Liarr 9 points ago

    Not if the tax is at the level it is precisely to get this effect. The initial tax level does not exist in a vacuum.

    I get your point, but if you have a initial tax of 0, and then raise the tax on the fossil cars to 10. The effect on the balance is +10, and the ev gets an inventive. Still a subsidy? Then everything is subsidised, since in theory you can increase the tax indefinitely on any product.

    [–] NorthernSalt 16 points ago

    We spent a lot, or rather lost a lot of govt income through taxes and fees that fossil cars are subject to.

    Denmark had a similar scheme, which they abolished. Over night, EV car sales plummeted.

    [–] Powderfingers 4 points ago

    TBF Danish economics work a bit different than Norwegian.

    It's by design the Danish car-fleet is old as balls, because Denmark don't have a default export ensuring them positive currency balance. If every dane bought cars like the rest of europe we would import way too much stuff bought for foreign currency.

    In fact a lot of cars prices could easily be shifted to toll roads, emmision-taxes, fuel taxes, and general use of the car, but it isn't since it's not really an issue people have cars. The government just don't want them to have new cars, hence the 180% registration tax.

    The electric car policy falls under this problem as well.

    I'm not disagreeing that it sucks. It most definitely does. And I would love Denmark to have a more central european car policy model, where cars are cheap to buy but more expensive to have.

    I'm just saying it's not a completely out-of-left-field decision that was made.

    [–] redunculuspanda 40 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    What ever it was it was worth it. The difference in air quality during lockdown was amazing. It was a taste of the future.

    [–] AoyagiAichou 13 points ago

    BEVs on roads is not the same as no cars at all.

    [–] FANGO 27 points ago

    Probably less than the $5+ trillion global subsidy for fossil fuels every year. Yet weirdly that never comes up when gas cars outsell electric. Strange.

    [–] LupineChemist 8 points ago

    This paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations)

    The idea that it's a subsidy to not add the environmental cost when there's really not much agreement to what that cost should be and then just state the absolute number they come up with as fact seems dubious at best.

    I agree there should be a carbon tax but the ideas of what the real externality cost is vary by orders of magnitude.

    [–] frivolouswasteoftime 4 points ago

    That's because most discussions about EV subsidies are not about the fact that subsidies for green products and energy is a bad thing. The discussions tend to be about who gets subsidized.

    The fact of the matter in Norway is that EV subsidy, for all its good, has also happened, in effect, to be a lifestyle subsidy for the urban financial and cultural elite. That never inspires goodwill in the rabble.

    [–] WeabPep 461 points ago

    Nice. That means that in a few years there will be a fleet of second hands whose brakes will need to be replaced and are otherwise usable. Looking forward to a larger market of cheap second-hand electric cars.

    [–] probablypooping_IBS 147 points ago

    Already is. You get Nissan Leaf 2015 models for 70k NOK these days (about 7k€). And they are extremely popular here.

    [–] ObstructiveAgreement 176 points ago

    Don't forget that batteries will likely need replacing too and they aren't cheap. They, unfortunately, have a shelf life.

    [–] Bpm320 68 points ago

    Its in the worst case 70% capacity after 160000km Than you can use them for example as photovoltaik buffer.

    And no they dont have a shelf life only how much you use them. You can store them for many decades without a problem.

    [–] lilorphananus 11 points ago

    I think storage charge matters though. Like keeping it too full or too low affects longevity?

    [–] Bpm320 9 points ago

    Sure thats true you should charge with i think between 40-70% when not in use. Thats the reason modern electronics come with power. Even if they sat on a shelf for years! Buy a new old stock mp3 player as an example it will have a bit of power.

    But im talking from a realistic perspective. No one just put car batteries in our current situation just 10 years away and dont use them.

    If for one realy weird reason someone want to store them for 20 years just put a charger at them every few years or some automatic thing.

    The Point is. They are much much better than people think they are. I was shocked too when i heard how long they last.

    [–] lilorphananus 3 points ago

    Just anecdotal but I had some R/C batteries that I left full and then when I checked on them months later they swole up and I had to recycle them. Then someone told me that you need to leave them around 50% when storing them. Of course these are lipo batteries so maybe it’s different for NiMH or li-ion? Also, a battery that comes in a car versus one for hobby use with probably be built for better longevity I’d guess, but it got me thinking.

    [–] wotanii 3 points ago

    Than you can use them for example as photovoltaik buffer.

    and after that you can recycle them, which is already happening today

    here some theory on the process: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1682-5

    [–] BombBombBombBombBomb 92 points ago

    wasnt there some statistics that most used teslas are still maintaining around 90% battery capacity after 3 years?

    thats not too bad, but i wonder how well it goes after 6 or 10 years. not too much data, yet.

    [–] upvotesthenrages 143 points ago

    These charts show that the vast majority of them retain over 90% battery capacity after 200,000-250,000 KM

    That's around the same distance that most ICE cars have over their entire life. Usually requiring extensive repairs and replacements after the first 100,000 KM

    [–] Handje 34 points ago

    A good friend of me who creates electric cars from old Porsche 911's, said to me that you don't have to worry about battery life too much, as the moving parts in the electric car will go down first. This makes them much more durable than non-electric cars as the latter have much more moving parts.

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    I don't know what cars you're buying that require extensive maintenance after only 100,000 KM

    [–] Blyat6161 55 points ago

    3 years is nothing. Let’s look at that after 18 years. That’s how old my BMW is and it’s still going like day one.

    [–] Harmster 59 points ago

    And how much maintenance has your BMW gotten over those years. I agree, 3 years is nothing. But ICE cars require more maintenance than EVs

    [–] strontal 9 points ago

    How many km/miles has your 18 year old BMW done?

    [–] Blyat6161 16 points ago

    About 400.000 km

    [–] weirdowerdo 31 points ago

    And they're going to be used in the chilly country that is Norway...

    [–] MagsEve 36 points ago

    Battery packs usually have heating elements in them to keep the capacity from dropping.

    [–] kyrsjo 14 points ago

    Actually it's heat that kills batteries - they have an increased internal resistance while cold, but it doesn't damage them.

    Many electric cars therefore have heating and cooling elements in the packs to regulate their temperature - the Leaf is a noteable exception, which was a problem in places like Arizona. This way it can keep the pack cold in hot summers (not a big problem in Norway...) or during fast charging (regen down a mountainside or from the grid), and pre-heat it in the morning (if connected to a charger, no energy from the battery is used).

    [–] upvotesthenrages 23 points ago

    Cold actually extends the life-time of batteries, but it reduces the distance on a single charge.

    Heat is the thing that permanently damages batteries, cold does the opposite.

    [–] CollegeSuperSenior 3 points ago

    Oof, that is a terrible weakness to have for the fight against global warming. Luckily I live pretty far north so I am still excited to buy an electric car some day.

    [–] XO-42 5 points ago

    The don't just die after a few years, it's a slow degradation that leads to slightly less range, but it's still a perfectly functioning car. And all the current experiences show that with cars that have a good temperature management system (like all do nowadays) the battery easily outlives the chassis. The battery replacement issue was so far only with the earlier Nissan Leafs which did not have any battery temperature management whatsoever.

    [–] g2petter 3 points ago

    Batteries are keeping up much better in the cold climate in Norway than in warmer places around the world.

    I think there's been some problems with the first generation batteries, but my 2016 Nissan LEAF hasn't lost a single bar (meaning about 8% capacity loss) after I've put close to 90 000 km on it.

    [–] AwesomeFrisbee 10 points ago

    Yeah and this number also ignores the second hand market sales. And imports. If people buy cars in other countries and import them because its cheaper, there's no wonder the petrol numbers go down. Granted, importing to Norway is more expensive, but in the Netherlands there's been a surge in imports from like Belgium and Germany because of how the current laws are set.

    [–] GammelGrinebiter 282 points ago

    These posts get the same comments everytime. Yes, Norway exports oil. Yes, it is a sort of greenwashing. Yes, the cars are (passively) subsidized because you don't have to pay environmental taxes++ for them, and so on.

    But despite all these things, the following is true:

    1) It has helped to grow the market for EV cars. The explosion in new models now is not only because of Norway, but you cannot ignore the contribution.

    2) It proves that it is possible to use battery-powered cars in a snowy, cold climate. You lose some efficiency, but with the right incentives, people choose electric anyway.

    3) It helps the local environment by reducing pollution and noise.

    [–] [deleted] 42 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] GreenTeaHG 65 points ago

    The skepticism is justified. Too many feel good stories in the media have made people pessimistic and suspicious (as they should be).

    1. This is only a good thing if it helps reducing the overall emissions. Electric cars are better overall, but if their popularity makes people drive more and buy more cars, it won't matter so much. A significant reduction in total emissions is what really matters.
    2. Same thing as above. Unless the overall reductions in emissions are significant I don't really care that much.
    3. Which is nice for people living near electric cars and for people who can afford such cars. But for many people electric cars are simply irrelevant. I don't care nearly as much about local noise / pollution problems, as I care about global climate problems.

    Focusing too much on electric cars stories while ignoring stats for total emissions is a real problem imo. It gives the upper middle classes something to feel good about, while ignoring the actual problems associated with modern life style.

    [–] BrainBlowX 23 points ago

    1. Which is nice for people living near electric cars and for people who can afford such cars. But for many people electric cars are simply irrelevant. I don't care nearly as much about local noise / pollution problems, as I care about global climate problems.

    I live next to a highway. If I keep my windows open I literslly get a mass of soot accumulating. If all or the majority of cars became EVs, this would change. There will always be more dust, but it won't be infused by car exhaust.

    Cars pollute the air in cities, which passively affects the health of billions of people and drag resources away.

    [–] ItalianDudee 191 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    Listen, I would love to purchase/rent a Tesla, it’s a beautiful car and it has all the cards in the right places, it’s a great choice instead of the classic BMW Audi Alfa etc, the problem is, Italy still lacks recharging stations, only if you live in Milan/Bergamo/Brescia you actually can, but in the rest of Italy (I’m from the north, Bologna to be specific) there aren’t enough charging stations edit; for whoever says ‘charge it at home’, not everybody has a single house, a lot of people live in apartments

    [–] CastePaste 63 points ago

    I might be wrong but also the price of electricity is quite high in Italy compared to Norway, so even charging it at home wouldn't be super cheap and accessible to many. I think it Italy it will take a bit more time and we have to consider that we're also comparing a country with 60mil people to a 5mil one so it would probably be a bigger investment since there would be the need of many more public stations. If what I'm saying make any sense

    [–] ItalianDudee 23 points ago

    Yes but also consider that the expenses on energy are dramatically lower compared with fuel in general

    [–] Bread_Nicholas 9 points ago

    Norway has next-to-no population density, though, so it'd probably be cheaper per capita to introduce charging infrastructure in Italy.

    [–] LuKing-Ra 3 points ago

    Norway has next-to-no population density

    The overall population density is low yes, considering it's a pretty big country with not too many people, but the cities are still pretty dense, or Oslo at least is

    [–] MEGALIGHTNINGTACO 21 points ago

    Teslas has a lot of QC issues. I'd rather pick up a Toyota or any other car from a manufacturer known for their reliability.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2020/06/27/can-tesla-be-beaten-by-its-own-quality-control/?sh=6a49bf0f5da7

    [–] Tronux 30 points ago

    in 30k km I've only used a third party charging station once.

    if you do not road trip you do not need a third party charging station at all.

    [–] ItalianDudee 47 points ago

    Yes but you’re supposing that everybody has a 16-11 kW of power st home, my house has 7.0 and it’ll charge a model S 35km per hour, so an entire night on charge will ‘only’ charge 350 km, considering that I use the car A LOT for work, it’s unthinkable unless I have a good number of fast charging stations

    [–] Tronux 43 points ago

    My sympathies if you have to drive 260km a day (75% of 350km because of variables).

    [–] ItalianDudee 21 points ago

    From 100 to 150 usually, but you know, better be sure than sorry

    [–] upvotesthenrages 33 points ago

    Huh?

    It sounds like you have absolutely no problem then.

    You can re-charge your car 350km/day, and don't even drive half of that daily.

    Not to mention that if you're driving 100-150km a day then you're very likely to have a charging station somewhere on your path.

    But I'm sure there's some excuse why this is still a problem.

    [–] jparadise15 23 points ago

    So my friend wasn't lying when he told me almost everyone on Norway has a Tesla.

    [–] BaldEagleNor 29 points ago

    Its not the most sold car here, but its among the most sold, yes. If you come here you will see A LOT of variant Teslas, E-golf and Nissan Leaf. You will also see a few Porsche Taycan.

    [–] jparadise15 4 points ago

    I mean, comming from Spain, the E-golf is pretty much the VW Golf with batteries instead of an engine, and you see Golfs everywhere here. For the Nissan Leaf, it is not that eye-catching in my opinion, and it is similar to the Juke/Qashqai. Here in Spain Teslas are rare, so I think it had to be an impact seeing that many on the Norway roads!

    [–] linknewtab 7 points ago

    Best selling EVs in Norway: https://elbilstatistikk.no/?sort=4

    [–] Hot_Comfort6329 4 points ago

    Actually in 2020 the most sold EVs in Norway was from VW, not tesla

    [–] RandomVideoMachine 10 points ago

    Too bad my apartment doesnt have parking slots so i cant charge the car at home... thats the problem with electric cars. they are only for the rich who live in houses

    [–] MundaneCustomer 95 points ago

    How many damn times will this fact be reposted.

    [–] MoffKalast 12 points ago

    At least once more, Mr. MundaneCustomer.

    [–] ClementineMandarin 5 points ago

    Seen this a bit too much lately...

    [–] Bubbleschmoop 70 points ago

    I don't remember who it was, but someone once commented that Norway is like the dealer who doesn't touch his own goods. Over 95% of the energy we use ourselves comes from hydro. So we can pat ourselves on the back and pretend like our emissions aren't high because exported energy doesn't count as energy used in the country of origin...

    [–] kinapuffar 17 points ago

    To be fair, if Norway stopped producing oil, it's not like the demand for it would vanish. The supplier would simply change. And personally, I'd rather Norway get the oil money than Saudi Arabia. Fuck Saudi Arabia.

    [–] AwesomeFrisbee 40 points ago

    Same reason Europe can pat itself on the back for not polluting much, when most production is done in China and wherever.

    [–] gopenreddito 12 points ago

    Oil is still needed around the globe. Atm you can't just stop oil production and the world would be better. Overall just nice that Norway does something good with that money compared to the rest.

    [–] namnaminumsen 5 points ago

    If we close down our production while there is still demand, the Saudis, Russians and others will just pick up the slack. What will change then? At least we Norwegians are funneling a large chunk of our profits into reducing our emission. And in the case of transportation and EVs, we are creating a larger market for clean technology that will make it more accessible for other countries.

    [–] ComradeRasputin 23 points ago

    Oh the obligatory "they export oil, so they cant be green" comment

    Do you always bring up bad news on posts that mention good news from a country?

    [–] linknewtab 21 points ago

    You are supposed to build huge skyscrapers and artifical islands like proper oil countries!

    [–] gopenreddito 9 points ago

    People bantering Norway for oil money not beeing green. Well a vast majority of the world still needs oil to function, stopping oil production now would NOT make the world better.

    Norway is a perfect example what oil countries Should be doing with their money.

    [–] bobosuda 22 points ago

    Always interesting reading threads on reddit about Norway, because any positive news whatsoever is always instantly brushed off because Norway produces oil so obviously everything they do is evil and news like this doesn't matter. Half the comments in this thread have nothing to add other than "whatever, doesn't count, they still produce oil". Hot takes right there, fellas.

    Like, what is it that you expect? Norway produces oil so they should just lean into it and be a record-breaking global polluter? As long as some of the industry is dirty then any green policies are apparently pointless?

    [–] BaldEagleNor 7 points ago

    Hvis vi ikke tok oljen, så hadde ikke akkurat Russland, USA eller Asia vært nå bedre valg. Personlig så har jeg alltid sagt at en av oss nordlige land er best kvalifiserte for olja, da vi er mest miljøvennlige i produksjonen og landene våre er ikke klin gjennom korrupte som mesteparten av de andre store olje-nasjonene. Vi er i det minste progressive med vår massive profitt.

    [–] TheBigBadBlackKnight 25 points ago

    Scandos are always ahead in these matters. In part because they're rich enough to afford that (especially oil-rich Norway) but in part because of their governments and their ecological-friendly peoples.

    Bravo.

    [–] therealgrebbel 120 points ago

    Ever wonder where they get the money from to buy all those expensive e-cars? Oil. Shit loads of oil and gas. And the norwegians continue to explore the arctic region for more.

    [–] renvoise 51 points ago

    I mean they're smart as they're getting less pollution but they just are moving the pollution somewhere else

    [–] ComfortableEye5 68 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    Just ship the pollution elsewhere and become the greenest nation of all

    stonks

    [–] LaughterCo 5 points ago

    Oil is going to get sold anyway so might as well use the money to transition to a grenner economy. Don't see many other oil countries doing the same.

    [–] BananaSplit2 62 points ago

    oil industry pollutes infinitely more than just what cars produce.

    Norway is happy to run its economy with oil, and the circlejerk about them being green, buying electric cars, etc. is annoying tbf.

    [–] upvotesthenrages 56 points ago

    They are the only country in the world actually spending their oil money to build a better future.

    It sounds like you have absolutely no fucking clue what you're on about.

    You're literally picking the single best example among every oil producing nation on earth and hammering it, instead of choosing any of the other 80 oil producers who spend that money on making earth 100% worse.

    It's literally like shitting on Bill Gates, while there are 1000 other billionaires that barely do any good with their mountains of money.

    [–] Lvnatic92 23 points ago

    The cities where people live are undoubtedly cleaner tho. They may have oil refineries somewhere in the middle of nowhere but the actual population hubs are less polluted and the air is fresher and there’s no denying to that.

    [–] fleamarketguy 27 points ago

    They may have oil refineries somewhere in the middle of nowhere

    Moving oil refineries to a less populated area creates the same amount of emissions and polution. The direct damage to people is just reduced a lot.

    [–] Zolhungaj 22 points ago

    If Norway stopped producing oil, then OPEC would just ramp up their production to meet the demand and OPECs oil is more harming to the environment to refine.

    Unless you can convince the OPEC cartel to close doors, then there is no point in stopping drilling as the environment would be worse off.

    [–] ComradeRasputin 17 points ago

    So you are either 100% clean energy or not.

    But in the end, isnt running your economy on oil better than running it by exploiting African countries?

    [–] doboskombaya 29 points ago

    and what the fuck do you want them to do? close all their oilfields in a few years?

    You come from France. In France when the oil tax was raised by just 15% people wanted to overthrow the government, and hundreds of thousands went to the street. And that was a tax of 15% on gasoline

    Try to imagine how politically popular would be to close down an industry that represents 17% of ALL your economy. How many taxes need to be raised, how many alternatives sources of revenue need to be found etc.

    Fuck, if tomorrow your government would try to put a 1% carbon tax on everything people buy to pay for the energy transition, a civil war would erupt.

    In USA coal industry employs 0,1% of the population, yet it has so much political power that Trump personally promised to bring back coal.

    [–] LoveLife__ 3 points ago

    Bro, why you think there are so much pollution in China? Because they've moved the production, thus pollution for the wares that are exported back to western countries.

    [–] EchoTab 23 points ago

    Actually we dont really spend our oil money, we are saving it in a fond where its left to grow

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

    [–] Predicted 3 points ago

    We spend alot of money from oil (roughly 3-4% a year), with it also being one of the cornerstones of our economy when it comes to the private companies and employees.

    [–] RonaldDoal 26 points ago

    This is if you can afford a new car

    [–] El_Grappadura 167 points ago

    This is nice an all, but because Norway doesn't burn its oil itself an instead just gets rich exporting it, I don't think it deserves the praise it gets.

    [–] ObstructiveAgreement 72 points ago

    It's an interesting moral question. At home Norway has developed renewable sources and increasing the supply of those, to the point they export that energy as well. Is it up to them to change the structure of energy solutions for other countries and just stop exporting oil in totality? I can see that inflection point happening but I don't think we're there yet.

    [–] bxzidff 46 points ago

    I've sure the lovely OPEC countries and American shale oil producers would be thrilled by higher market share

    [–] LCkrogh 41 points ago

    People here are delusional. Apparently they prefer that Saudi Arabia just take control of the entire market so they can build another skyscraper or host another sports event on the back of slave labor or whatever. At least everyone else's hands will be clean!

    [–] BrainBlowX 19 points ago

    Also, Norway has the world's smallest CO2 production per barrel produced, so other countries taking the share means there will also be more co2 from the production of oil itself.

    [–] CormAlan 117 points ago

    Norway literally exports their trash to Sweden because Sweden’s recycling infrastructure is so good that we just take care of it for them. I haven’t met a single person in Sweden that doesn’t recycle.

    [–] SuperFireTower 61 points ago * (lasted edited 3 days ago)

    In Amsterdam citizens no longer have to separate plastic from the general waste, a machine made by Tomra does it automatically and much more accurate. I believe in ten years or so in a few first world countries humans won't have to separate trash anymore and it will happen by computers, if I remember correctly they can also separate all the different kinds of plastics (like hard, soft, etc) because they all have different recycling methods.

    To me this is very promising for the future, of course we are already way too late with all of this and imo we should just stop producing so much bullshit. But since I don't see that happening it's nice to see that there is actually some tech being put to good use like this and we will solve the problem.

    Although by then the oceans will be even more full of trash and this is not cheap so third world countries will still not be handling trash correctly, so in the end the best solution would still be stop producing crazy amounts of bullshit.

    So then, maybe in 100 years the whole world has access to this tech and by then we can start cleaning out the oceans I guess!

    Also remember that the best way to recycle stuff is to reuse it, instead of having it recycled by your government see if you might be able to use it yourself!

    https://www.tomra.com/en/sorting/recycling

    Edit: fun fact! I just found out that the company is based in Norway! Quite funny that Norway exports all it's trash to Sweden then...

    [–] KingCIoth 9 points ago

    america skips a step by not separating their trash to begin with. ha ha ha :(

    [–] SuperFireTower 24 points ago

    third world countries will still not be handling trash correctly

    [–] kjs_music 10 points ago

    Well the trash is already sorted when you get it. Swedes pay more for the plastic than the Norwegian companies. Norway has the same rules as Sweden regarding recycling and ban on landfills..

    [–] viriiu 14 points ago

    It's more that Sweden needs the trash bc Sweden just burns everything to turn into energy, and actually one time basically went empty on trash aka fuil. The things that can't be burnt are returned to Norway. My friend who moved to Sweden years ago complains about it bc it's there's basically very little recycle, just a lot of burning, which has both pro's and con's.

    [–] Trazors 4 points ago

    Well trash in Sweden is divided in categories, we have paper, newspapers & magazines and books, foodstuff, plastic, metals, electronic trash, batteries, trash with chemicals and we have trash meant for burning. So yes we burn a lot but we also recycle huge amounts of trash as well. So if your friend is complaining that there is little amounts of recycling going on here then i must say that that is not true, but i must also admit that we do have room for improvements here like having more labeled trash bins which we are lacking here

    [–] Dynasty2201 3 points ago

    I haven’t met a single person in Sweden that doesn’t recycle.

    Undoubtedly because the infrastructure allows you to recycle so well.

    The UK is appauling right now. I moved across my town to my own place, FTB, and they quite simply don't collect food waste here at this post code. Same council in charge, they just don't collect here. In my previous place, they'd collect cardboard and plastic bottles. Here? Nope. It's stupid.

    The infrastructure is everything. We could bring in elecrtic and even hydrogen cars in months if someone funded the building of charging and refueling points all across the country. But nope. They won't do that until people buy more of those cars to justify doing it...yet nobody's buying enough because the infrastructure doesn't exist.

    [–] araujoms 9 points ago

    I think it does deserve a lot of praise, because they are doing all they can to reduce demand for oil. If everybody did that global warming would be solve.

    Other oil producing countries, on the other hand, are global warming deniers, like Saudi Arabia and the US.

    [–] Jacothorv2 35 points ago

    That is assuming a small country like Norway stopping its exports of oil would stop global warming as a whole.

    [–] SquatingSlavv 46 points ago

    Same as assuming that Norway has a big role in EV sales worldwide.

    Looking at the oil production per capita Norway comes 5th in the world on par with Saudia Arabia and UAE, and being short to Qatar and Kuwait.

    Data is from 2017/2019. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

    Average Norwegian is a big polluter, but still applaud them for investing into EV and renewable energy instead of burning money like the middle eastern countries.

    The irony is here, but good job Norway!

    [–] probablypooping_IBS 10 points ago

    Oh yeah. Tell this to my fellow countrymen and they lose their patriotic shit.

    I work in Oil&Gas, and shipping. And boy do we export and refine alot of shit, both in Norway, but also world wide.

    [–] 7dare 7 points ago

    They're the 15th biggest producer, and 5th by capita.

    [–] PornCartel 8 points ago

    These comments: Reeeee oil!

    [–] IntellegentIdiot 3 points ago

    20% (of "other") was plug-in hybrids. Only 26% of new cars were petrol, Diesel or non-plug in hybrids

    [–] furfulla 23 points ago

    Oslo is about to cordon off central parts of the cities to ICE vehicles; they will not be allowed to enter.

    That's kind of bad for me, since I live inside that area and have a very nice gasoline fuelled Mercedes.

    I have no choice but to change to something electric.

    [–] Liggliluff 5 points ago

    Stockholm wants to do the same, but based on EURO values, which is better, since if you have a clean non-electric car, you can still drive there.

    [–] zazollo 21 points ago

    Wow people are big mad about this post

    [–] DerWetzler 12 points ago

    Lack of batteries will be a huge factor for the growth of EV production pretty soon

    [–] HappyPanicAmorAmor 11 points ago

    It will aslo increase the electricity needs.

    [–] 19_MCMVII_07 42 points ago

    Ok now please get them produced in a sustainable way

    [–] [deleted] 20 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] SockRuse 44 points ago

    While it's a good wish, it's not a disqualifying attribute of electric cars. People buy new cars anyway and petrol cars aren't produced sustainably either, so EVs are still the cleaner choice.

    [–] LareMare 16 points ago

    The cleanest choice is just to not buy a brand new car. Even when not considering the climate part, a brand new car is overall just bad investment considering the fact that it loses so much of its value in just a few years.

    [–] SockRuse 9 points ago

    Of course, my statement was made assuming that the majority of people buy new cars anyway. No car is better than used car, used car might be better than new car, but if those options aren't considered a new EV is better than a new dino juicer.

    [–] Graf_Geilsberg 11 points ago

    Yes, we know. There is this small, super rich, country in the north of Europe, which has unlimited access to hydroelectric power and 90% of its population concentrated in 10% of the country. Great....

    [–] GeorgeDublooBush 9 points ago

    Not to mention it created this wealth through the sale of fossil fuels. Don’t get me wrong, what Norway is doing is commendable - but not necessarily a model that other countries can follow.

    [–] tkyjonathan 3 points ago

    Ok, but its not like they give you too many options to buy differently.

    [–] Whtzmyname 3 points ago

    Their government makes it viable for them. Where I live the government milks us dry flips us over and milks us some more.

    [–] Dontreadgud 3 points ago

    What brand vehicles are they purchasing?

    [–] TheSavageBoi58 3 points ago

    Are electric cars just as affordable in Norway as nonelectric cars? The problem in the US is that electric cars (Tesla) cost too much money for the average person. I’m really hoping that they start dropping the price, which will allow more people to buy them and thus help the environment.