Meanwhile government employees here have to drive their private cars during the winter because the electric cars supplied by the employer can't handle the cold. I'm curious how planned the date is with respect to the consequences. This will shake everything from mechanics to handling crisis such as weather catastrophes or war as in Ukraine. Will we have enough batteries? Will we become dependent on China? Will the average Joe afford a car or will it become a privilege for rich people? Where will we get the power from when we barely can supply existing infrastructure and companies are denied permission to expand? Will we have hundreds of thousands of charging stations on the streets? Lots of questions I'd love to see the answers to.
The thing is that was mostly done via government price manipulation (decreased VAT and other benefits). Now after VAT is back to normal sales of EV vehicles there drastically dropped.
Also, that article is from February, about a 1 month change in sales in January when the subsidy was dropped. On Dec 1, anyone who had near-term plans to buy an EV would obviously push to buy before the loss of subsidy in Jan. And by corollary, anyone who buys in Jan is probably highly price insensitive (rare) or had the purchase forced by other events (like their current car was totaled). This change doesn’t say anything meaningful (positive or negative) about the intrinsic value of EVs in Norway. There is no way to infer any kind of “normal sales of EV vehicles” from this data.
You should try googling, all those questions have been answered. There are YouTube videos summarizing the academic research in an approachable way.
Or, catching onto the zeitgeist, try asking ChatGPT, it's almost certainly absorbed answers to all of these.
edit: Your question about average Joes returns:
> The cost of electric vehicles (EVs) has been decreasing steadily in recent years due to advancements in technology and economies of scale in production. As a result, the price of EVs is now comparable to many traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, and in some cases, they can even be less expensive over the life of the vehicle due to lower operating costs.
> However, at present, the upfront cost of EVs is still generally higher than gasoline-powered vehicles, and this may make them more difficult for some people to afford. This is especially true for lower-income individuals who may have limited access to financing or tax incentives that can help reduce the cost of EVs.
> Nevertheless, governments and automakers are implementing policies and incentives to encourage the adoption of EVs and make them more accessible to the average consumer. For example, many countries offer tax credits or rebates for purchasing an EV, and some cities are providing free charging stations and preferential parking for EV owners. Additionally, as the production of EVs continues to scale up, it is likely that the price of EVs will continue to decline, making them more affordable for a wider range of consumers.
> Overall, while the cost of EVs may still be a barrier for some people, it is expected that the transition to electric vehicles will become increasingly accessible and affordable as the technology continues to improve and become more widespread.
As an aside, it is stunning to watch ChatGPT already incorporated into casual online discourse. That technology is truly earth shattering. It will change what it is to be human.
Volkswagen just announced their next generation electric car that will be similar to the normal Golf/Polo and cost under 25k€ (which would be quite normal for an ICE car like this). I would be positive that the cost will go down significantly (and yes even taking into account that batteries might be exchanged to provide a functioning market for used-cars).
For the last 20 years battery cost per kW/h has fallen around 10% average every year. ICE engines have thousands of moving parts driving up the complexity and price, while electric engines have what, 3 moving parts?
It is inevitable that the electric cars will take over, ICE engines just can´t compete on price.
Or maybe we should replace individual mobility with useful public transport, as electric vehicles are not a general solution due to all the issues you're pointing out and many more.
There is already massive work planned on that axis across the EU, with multi-billion investments in various important (at the EU and local levels) transit projects.
That works great if you are living in a major city. Once you become even remotely rural, public transit becomes a massive problem - turns out point-to-point connections do not all converge on the same entry- and exit points.
Which leads to an even more overheated market for flats in major cities and even more incentive of rural voters to vote for whatever radical party promises them a radically easier way of transport outside of major population centres.
This can be done, but it will take decades and major construction activity. Which may be constrained by the fact that steel and concrete production is CO2-heavy too. (And not just that, AFAIK the Netherlands put very strict limits on construction activity because of nitrogen emissions from the construction vehicles.)
In the West, a lot of the middle class settlements have spread thin and wide, making public transport inefficient. Redensification is possible, but complicated - it involves a lot of people moving and at least some of them losing their gardens.
Meanwhile, construction of new railways or upgrades of existing tracks (including light rail) meets heavy NIMBY opposition on every step, even in countries where rail is widely used for commute (such as in Czechia).
In contemporary developed civilization, it is much easier to ban than to build.
The use cases don't overlap for a lot of car's usage. And the only people pushing public transports are people who never use them daily, because if they did they would know how bad it is to have train delay or cancelation twice a week, strikes at least 3 times a year, issue with tramway hitting cars or people fighting inside it, not to mention the permanent insecurity and piss odour in the subway.
All the issues you mention could be solved by more investment in public transport. I'm assuming you're from the states — try taking public transport in a country where it functions well, and see if you change your mind.
> All the issues you mention could be solved by more investment in public transport.
No. Insecurity won't go away just because stations look nicer. And for trains the problem is not investments, it's the civil servant mentality of people working there that don't give a shit about users and want to work as little as possible. The national railways company is well known for being a sinecure (it was personally confirmed by my brother who was told not to work too hard -- he was already not working a lot -- when doing an internship there).
And I'm not even talking of the huge ticket prices, the machines not working, the lack of accessibility (better not have a big luggage or god forbid being in a wheelchair), restricted hours when the services are working, etc. There is a lot of things to hate about public transportations, at least when it's not done properly. It's fine in Japan but even there there are issues, Kyoto buses for instance is a shitshow.
> I'm assuming you're from the states
You are assuming wrong, I'm from and currently living in France.
Anything else individual to be replaced by communal? Like, maybe, everything? Or just the cars? There are countries already implementing what you believe is right. Please emigrate over there and enjoy.
Arguing against a strawman is not a useful discussion technique. I was talking about public transport exclusively. Go to London or Tokyo and ask people living there if they would prefer to exchange the tube/Tokyo metro with individual cars.
It's funny how in some threads you've got people panicking that there will be no work left to do because of AI and in others people panicking that twelve years is far too short a time to make a change like getting rid of cars.
