- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Summary
Norway is on track to become the first country to eliminate gasoline and diesel cars from new car sales, with EVs making up over 96% of recent purchases.
Decades of incentives, including tax breaks and infrastructure investments, have driven this shift.
Officials see EV adoption as a “new normal” and aim for electric city buses by 2025.
While other countries lag behind, Norway’s success demonstrates the potential for widespread EV adoption.
While there is no hard rules involved with the word “slightly” when used to describe a change in percentage it is generally used for changes of 5% or less.
Yes this is getting pedantic about the English language but a 20% change would be more accurately referred to as a “moderate” change.
And you are absolutely correct ICE engines are always less thermally efficient than EVs. Your average standard gasoline engine these days is somewhere in the ballpark of ~25% efficient. Some of the more efficient diesel ICEs are up to 50% efficient these days. EVs tend to be around ~90% thermally efficient.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667141723001088#%3A~%3Atext=Typically%2C+most+Li-ion+battery%2C]%2C+[21]].
Also it’s not a 20% loss at 0°C. It’s closer to 50%. Which would be most accurately described as a “significant” loss of efficiency.
https://ev.aaa.com/articles/are-electric-cars-good-in-winter/#%3A~%3Atext=How+much+of+a%2Ccar's+heating+system+is+on.
Even AAA did research that shows it’s anywhere from 10% loss in range to 40% loss as you get colder and colder.
I’ve read through your all of your arguments on this thread and it looks like you’re reading lots of papers, looking at a particular finding under specific circumstances, then using that as a blanket answer as to why EVs aren’t viable. The problem is that these are mostly devoid of real world usage of EVs where viability is ultimately determined. Here’s one example:
If an EV driver is only using a fraction of their range to accomplish 100% of their driving needs, then the temporary reduction in battery capacity is completely irrelevant. I can’t say I know any EV drivers that have a 80 mile commute and only buy an EV capable of driving 80 miles under perfect conditions. Would that person exist, you’d have a valid point, but I would guess that person would be a statistical anomaly and shouldn’t be used to derive policy or guidance for the majority of people. Most EV drivers are driving EVs with 200+ mile range and only using a small fraction of that for daily usage, so even with the most extreme temporary reductions its little to no impact on their driving ability.
In another post you called out that EV batteries use Cobalt which is typically derived from questionable human rights locations. Again, true on paper, but not all EVs use NMC or NCA chemistries which use Cobalt. Many EVs today use LFP and many in the years ahead will be Sodium based, neither of which use Cobalt at all in the batteries. So again, you found one particular finding and applied it to all EVs.
Any arguments you have about how dirty the extraction and transport methods used for EV materials fall apart immediately when the alternative is petroleum exploration, extraction, refinement, and distribution which need to occurr on an ongoing basis to keep fueling ICE vehicles.
I don’t think anyone is claiming EVs are completely perfect from a user experience or environmental impact, however, compared to the alternative of ICE vehicles and the ongoing environmental and geopolitical impacts of the needed petroleum extraction needed to continue their use, EVs are a dream come true.
What is the efficiency of an internal combustion engine in cold weather, for comparison?
At least the EV starts every damn time.
Batteries don’t stay at 0C very long… Because you heat them up. It’s a known and solved problem.