Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by DerJacques 2822 days ago
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/...).

2 comments

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.

> 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

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.

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...

Putting all oil money into state owned fund also kinda helps the people ruling the state :)
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.

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.

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)

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)
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.

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..

What's the current tax on a base Tesla Model S?
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.