| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 2 days ago |
| 98% of new car sales in Norway are EV at this point. How do you admit something that is not true? |
|
| ▲ | tw-20260303-001 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes. Five million of them does not require many cars. 180k in 2025. Compare that to 2.4 million in Germany. |
|
| ▲ | quickthrowman 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A wealthy nation with a small population that has plenty of money to update their infrastructure is not comparable to upgrading the grid and converting the fleet of 250M cars in the US, which is a mess of 50 states who spend varying amounts of money on their infrastructure. The US grid is already stressed by all these new data centers, where is the power to send 10kW of power minimum to tens to hundreds of millions of vehicles every day going to come from? 100M vehicles times 10kW divided by one million is One Million Megawatts. One Thousand Gigawatts. That’s five hundred 2GW power plants. Four thousand solar panels make 1MW, four million solar panels make 1GW, four billion solar panels make 1000 GW. And that’s 40% of the fleet converted to EVs, and does not account for diesel semi-tractors being converted to EV. |
| |
| ▲ | wasabi991011 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > A wealthy nation with a small population that has plenty of money to update their infrastructure is not comparable to upgrading the grid and converting the fleet of 250M cars in the US, which is a mess of 50 states who spend varying amounts of money on their infrastructure. The US is plenty wealthy per capita, around the same or more than Norway. It has plenty of money to upgrade it's infrastructure, it just chooses to spend it on other goals such as bombing Iran. | | |
| ▲ | danaris 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The US is plenty wealthy per capita This is not a particularly useful statistic when talking about the number of cars being bought. Almost invariably, "per capita wealth" uses mean wealth. This is dramatically different from the median wealth. When you've got a few individual people worth upwards of $200 billion, that means that each one of them adds roughly $1000 to the "per capita wealth" number, while only ever accounting for something like a dozen cars at the outside. |
| |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > which is a mess of 50 states who spend varying amounts of money on their infrastructure. That is not a tech problem, which is the claim I was replying to. I saw your deleted comment about four charging stations costing $200,000 or so. Four petrol stations also cost that much. Nobody is saying infrastructure is free, but phasing out infrastructure is simply a matter of time and political will, not a fundamental tech problem. | | |
| ▲ | quickthrowman 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree that we’ll eventually fully convert to EVs, it’s just going to take way longer than a lot of people expect. It’s going to be tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade electrical transmission, distribution, and premises distribution. Edit: You nailed it, it’s a political problem in the US. | | |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > It’s going to be tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade electrical transmission, distribution, and premises distribution. Would certainly happen a lot faster if, for example, America spent the $200 billion the Pentagon just asked for the Iran war on infrastructure instead. It would even benefit Americans, imagine that! America is the wealthiest country in the world by far, it has the capital to facilitate the process, but taxpayers would rather blow it on bombing schools across the world. | | |
| ▲ | danaris 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | > taxpayers would rather I think if you look at poll numbers, you'll find that taxpayers, on the whole, would very much rather not be bombing schools across the world. Trump's pointless (indeed, highly counterproductive) strikes on Iran are not at all popular, and quite the opposite of the platform he campaigned on. | | |
| ▲ | rjrjrjrj 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | The taxpayers, on the whole, voted for a pathological liar.
And that is what they got. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nullpoint420 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If they could find the power for the data centers, why can’t we find it for EVs? | | |
| ▲ | tw-20260303-001 2 days ago | parent [-] | | But they didn’t find power for data centres. That’s one of their problems. | | |
| ▲ | nullpoint420 a day ago | parent [-] | | So there's no new capacity that went online for the new build-outs? None of that could've been used for residential capacity? | | |
| ▲ | danaris 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure there is. But some of the datacenters individually use as much power as an entire city. When you're trying to build out dozens or hundreds of those across the country, there's no way we can ramp up capacity at that rate. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Norway is hardly alone. More and more countries are increasing EV purchases and decreasing ice purchases. We are clearly headed in that direction | | |
| ▲ | quickthrowman 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree, I’m just saying it’s easier for a country with a sovereign wealth fund and ridiculous oil royalties to handle upgrading their infra to handle EVs for 6M is much easier than doing it in the US which has extremely low average population density, 250M+ vehicles and 400M people, and a mess of separate but inter-tied grids and varying levels of infrastructure investment depending on which state you are in. | | |
| ▲ | varjag 2 days ago | parent [-] | | We have the wealth fund precisely because we don't discretionally spend oil royalties. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | GenerWork 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Remove the EV subsidies and ICE taxes, and what would that number switch to? |
| |
| ▲ | the_why_of_y 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A big chunk of the $5 trillion yearly subsidies for fossil fuels is for ICE car fuels. See IMF Working Paper for year 2020. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti... | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | speedgoose 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 97% perhaps. EVs are nicer and more convenient there. And cheaper. | | |
| ▲ | pqtyw a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Entirely because of taxes. Norway and Denmark are special cases because they already had extremely high taxes on ICE vehicles. | | |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you feel that externalities should not be taxed? That individuals should be able to do things that collectively cost everyone else in society money, without any expectation that they pay money into a societal fund to address the problems created by their own actions? |
| |
| ▲ | tw-20260303-001 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > And cheaper. You sound like a broken record. > Remove the EV subsidies and ICE taxes. | | |
| ▲ | speedgoose 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Should I include the cost of the current wars? | | |
| ▲ | nxm a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Or bulk of NATO's defense costs, which Europeans refuse to contribute to | | |
| ▲ | 8note a day ago | parent [-] | | from the impacts of the straight of hormuz closing, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine - electrification and removing dependence on oil and gas is a major defense cost. any spending on EV adoption should be considered part of the NATO commitment |
| |
| ▲ | tw-20260303-001 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Go on then. | | |
| ▲ | speedgoose a day ago | parent [-] | | Per my calculations, EVs are cheaper over the whole vehicle lifetime. I included construction costs and usage costs, in terms of money, environmental impact, and health impacts. Of course, no cars is even better. If we could all ski, cycle, or run, it would be even cheaper and better for our health. It’s a trade of. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
