Denmark to ban petrol and diesel car sales by 2030

https://www.euractiv.com/section/electric-cars/news/denmark-to-ban-petrol-and-diesel-car-sales-by-2030/

by afishisafish • 8 years ago

592 392 8 years ago

DerJacques• 8 years 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/...).

martin_bech4• 8 years ago

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..

lucideer• 8 years ago

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.

daveFNbuck5• 8 years ago

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.

xxs2• 8 years ago

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.

NeedMoreTea3• 8 years ago

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.

jopsen6• 8 years ago

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.

thelaith5• 8 years ago

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...

thomasahle• 8 years ago

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

gambiting4• 8 years ago

As great as it is, remember that hybrids are exempt. And the law is very lax when it comes to a definition of a hybrid - Range Rover has a model with a whooping 1 mile(!!!) of electric range, but of course it has an electric motor so it qualifies as a hybrid and could still be sold under this ban. I expect very very soon we'll see this kind of extremely minor electrification coming to all kinds of vehicles, where a tiny electric motor integrated into the transmission provides few extra HP of power just to call the car a hybrid.

phil248• 8 years ago

The 2019 Range Rover hybrid has an all electric range of 31 miles. Maybe an older model has a 1 mile electric range? That didn't pass the smell test so I had to look it up.

gambiting4• 8 years ago

Yeah the new 400e has more range. The original that came out few years ago had only 1 mile range, as mentioned in the brochure:

https://www.landrover.com/Images/HYBRID_FAQ_GUIDE_Intreactiv...

"How far can my Range Rover Hybrid travel using just the electric motor?

When Electric Vehicle mode is activated manually using the EV button, the EV light on the instrument cluster will glow green. The Range Rover Hybrid will drive silently at slow speeds for a distance of up to 1 mile/1.6km provided the hybrid battery is fully charged when EV mode is activated"

ehnto• 8 years ago

At first that sounded ridiculous but actually it might be just right for an SUV in suburbia. Day to day driving is electric, then long distance is combustion. Pretty much what I would need in Australia.

floatrock6• 8 years ago

Interesting bit about the Range Rover model, but from the fourth paragraph:

“In just 12 years, we will prohibit the sale of new diesel and petrol cars. And in 17 years, every new car in Denmark must be an electric car or other forms of zero-emissions car,” Rasmussen said, implying that hybrids will be phased out in 2035.

stephengillie17• 8 years ago

So hybrids are not as exempt as earlier discussion would suggest.

Any thoughts on converting a hybrid to an EV?

Edit: The engine cavity should be able to hold a lithium battery ~250+ lbs, and the 1.6 kWh NiMH battery is another ~250+ lbs that can be replaced with another lithium battery pack. If a Powerwall were used for each, the car would have 27.4 kWh, which I think would power my Camry Hybrid only about 30 miles. So maybe not very feasible until after another battery technology upgrade.

maxsilver2• 8 years ago

Range Rover has a model with a whooping 1 mile(!!!) of electric range, but of course it has an electric motor so it qualifies as a hybrid

"Just 1 mile of electric range" is true for most hybrids that don't plug into to charge (from Ford, Chevy, Toyota, etc). Obviously more miles would be even better, but this isn't a terrible thing on it's own.

The base non-plug-in Toyota Prius Hybrid has had "just 1 mile of electric range" for over a decade now, that hasn't stopped it from getting 50mpg ratings (a full 50% decrease in emissions from the current average US fleet MPG at ~25mpg).

dsfyu404ed10• 8 years ago

This. Think of the battery and electric motor in a hybrid like a caching system that makes the power-train able to use energy a lot more efficiently.

tomp2• 8 years ago

that hasn't stopped it from getting 50mpg ratings

Is this the "50mpg under ideal laboratory conditions driven by an AI" or "as driven in a real city/highway by a human"?

the8472• 8 years ago

And in 17 years, every new car in Denmark must be an electric car or other forms of zero-emissions car,” Rasmussen said, implying that hybrids will be phased out in 2035.

mtgx• 8 years ago

Indeed. Mercedes has already announced that it will "electrify" 300 models over the next decade or so, and I expect at least 280 of those to work exactly as you said, not just for the purpose of exploiting this kind of legislation, but also for marketing purposes ("An electrified car is basically just the same as an electric car, right?").

rb808• 8 years ago

1 mile(!!!) of electric range,

Other people have talked about this, but I'm wondering if the change to having electric drive motors and an engine just for generating electricity is more efficient and easier on the engine. (regenerative breaking aside)

vegardx3• 8 years ago

No, but you don't need a complex drive train, like modern plug-in hybrids have.

stephengillie17• 8 years ago

This is how hybrids work at low speeds. They use 2 motor/generators - 1 to push the wheels, and the other to refill the batteries.

Most hybrids use a slightly different engine, which is more efficient but generates less force. The hybrid transmission can add torque when accelerating or going uphill.

The engine must get less wear. My Camry Hybrid only needs an oil change every edit: 10,000 miles.

floatrock6• 8 years ago

The Chevy Volt is like this -- drivetrain is electric, gas engine is just a generator.

stephengillie17• 8 years ago

You would be surprised how many times you use that one EV mile during the average 30 mile commute. In traffic and cities, you often don't need more than the 40 HP given by the transmission alone.

Hybrids have a torque curve that starts like an EV, then continues like a gas car. This means great torque from 0 mph through highway speeds.

And then there's idle at stop lights, the biggest waste of fuel and a huge cause of pollution. Modern engines use 6 seconds of fuel when starting, but most cars idle for minutes at a light.

ATsch2• 8 years ago

I assume that despite the one mile figure, it will still decrease the amount of fuel burnt. Not having to burn fuel for every stop and go will save a bunch of carbon I bet.

rohit2412• 8 years ago

But then aren't hybrids better than BEV, given a few miles of range?

Why make a 90KwHr battery for a car, if you can make 3 cars out of it. After all current reserves of Cobalt, nickel, and lithium are finite.

Zekio3• 8 years ago

Cobalt is the most finite one of those, and once lithium prices go up it is likely someone will begin harvesting it from sea water

meguest3• 8 years ago

Car manufacturers are now looking at using 48v powered turbochargers to eliminate turbo lag. I wonder if that could be seen as an electrification of the powertrain?

stephengillie17• 8 years ago

A turbocharger is a funny shaped air compressor. So let's put an air compressor in the trunk and pipe the air to the intake manifold. And if there car is a hybrid, that battery can power the compressor too.

billysielu• 8 years ago

2030 is ages away, try 2020.

scrollaway2• 8 years ago

Out of curiosity, are you the kind of person who complains if Google shuts down a free product with less than a 1 year heads up?

I wonder how some HN commenters would do at being head of state, sometimes. The bar seems to have lowered lately anyway.

Edit: just to clarify and be less dismissive: Banning things everyone uses with little homework is a great way to fail at it. Since this is a tech forum, you can think of it kinda like upgrading your language, framework, kernel and landing a massive refactor, all at once, in production, without testing. It's like that, except you have tens-to-hundreds of millions of users, and their lives are at stake.

Bans take time, otherwise they're not effective. Besides, if they had announced 2020, I'm nearly certain the parent comment would ask for 2019.

femidav7• 8 years ago

Bans like this are unlawful and should be countered by a revolution.

jrnvs• 8 years ago

Don't forget that car companies plan years ahead. Setting an end-date like this brings the subject on the table of the car companies' board rooms.

dsfyu404ed10• 8 years ago

And setting an impossible to implement date of 2020 is a great way to ensure they donate their money to whoever's running against you.

jimmaswell7• 8 years ago

Virtually nobody buys new cars in Denmark because of the taxes anyway, and even if they did, it's a very small country (~5M) and would only account for a very small percentage of global sales. I doubt the subject of Denmark come up in automobile companies' board rooms at all outside of a small footnote on the occasional pie chart.

seanalltogether2• 8 years ago

Instead of governments announcing bans (I believe france announced a future ban a couple months back), I would rather see these governments committing to only purchasing electric vehicles for all government fleets. Why not put your money were your mouth is and help pump money into the industry via purchasing orders, rather then simply announcing a ban?

dsfyu404ed10• 8 years ago

Why not put your money were your mouth is

"Rules for thee and not for me"

The government is happy to tell everyone else what to do but when it comes time to buy their own vehicles they don't have to play by those rules so their decision making process does not reflect the presence those rules and they wind up buying ICE vehicles for the majority of use cases because from a strict numbers perspective those are what make sense in a majority of use cases.

RobAley• 8 years ago

Because this does exactly that, and more. The gov have effectively committed to buying only elecrtic fleets because thats all that will be sold.

seanalltogether2• 8 years ago

Not really, these bans are set so far in the future that they are almost meaningless, a problem for the next government to figure out, or delay even further.

On the other hand, the current government could easily announce that starting in 2020 all new government fleet purchases are required to be electric and it would help create a lot of new competition to bid for those orders.

dsfyu404ed10• 8 years ago

This is leading by decree. At best the next government has to deal with it (or exempt themselves).

Purchasing electric fleets in order to speed up development and adopting of EVs is leading by example.

vegardx3• 8 years ago

Perhaps they do?

In Norway you're going to have a hard time finding a petrol or diesel car that fits the government requirements.

See §5: https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2017-12-11-1995/§5

anticensor4• 8 years ago

Why are buses exempt? Too cold for electric buses?

floatrock6• 8 years ago

As with most things in life, it's not black-and-white... both are happening (although fleet vehicles tend to be more visible at the municipal level). You do still need national-level policy to set market certainty and reduce risk, though (a car maker is much more likely to invest in significant retooling if they're guaranteed a market for that retooling).

Even in the US, the USPS is experimenting with electric mail trucks: https://about.usps.com/what-we-are-doing/green/vehicles.htm

If the ban is the stick, the best return on the carrots would be increasing public charging infrastructure. SF runs chargers in front of city hall, for example.

Symbiote4• 8 years ago

For one example [1], Copenhagen is converting the buses and harbour ferries to electric. Already, many of the busiest or most-central routes use LPG or hybrid buses.

Many of the city's other vehicles are electric, for example the vehicles used for collecting litter or moving the workmen who do minor repairs.

That isn't the national government though. I don't know what cars they use.

I don't want to link to the kind of newspapers that report on European royal families, but the crown prince of Denmark takes his children to school/nursery by bicycle. (Last time I saw them, the oldest was riding her own bike.)

[1] https://www.sustainable-bus.com/electric-bus/copenaghen-purc...

josu2• 8 years ago

There is a long list of countries that decided to ban fossil fuel burning cars in the upcoming years.

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

Personally, I don't think the ban will ever be enforced. It will create the right incentives and most car sales will be electric, but there will still be fossil fuel burning car sales.

tedeh• 8 years ago

Enforcing it is going to be quite simple.

The "DMV" or equivalent will have a very hard time explaining why they are still giving out license plates for new vehicles that are not electric if the ban is made law.

josu2• 8 years ago

Yeah, I was referring to the fact that the regulation won't come into force and will keep getting pushed back.

gambiting4• 8 years ago

As I explained elsewhere - hybrids are exempt. And all current manufacturers can make all of their models into some extremely mild hybrids just to get around the ban. So expect to see a lot of models with 1bhp electric motors just to classify as hybrids coming out soon. And cars made before the ban will obviously be still allowed, so there's no issues there.

frockington• 8 years ago

There is an easy way out too: "We believe mandating the purchase of a new car may be difficult for some families and may inadvertently discriminate against the poor". Add some buzzwords like "singe mother", "working through college", and "recently laid off" and it'll be one of the easiest regulations to walk out of, assuming anyone remembers in 2030

reacharavindh2• 8 years ago

Wonder what it'd do to the resale value of cars even before 2030.

Denmark with their famous 150% registration tax already has cars being used much longer than what I've seen in other countries. I'd love to see the 150% tax waived off for 100% electric cars that are not luxury vehicles. Set strict constraints for a common man car, and incentivize it turning electric.

Also, think about the charging infrastructure....

jstanley2• 8 years ago

Why does it make any difference whether it is a luxury vehicle or not?

brixon• 8 years ago

Because you need to always look like you want to tax the rich more.

EpicEng• 8 years ago

If you want to tax the crap out of vehicles (like Denmark) then it makes sense to give some relief to people who just need to get around as opposed to people who can afford a 50k+ car.

I suppose.

ska5• 8 years ago

Why does (specifically) taxing any luxury make sense?

jimmaswell7• 8 years ago

I never understood how anyone possibly felt the ridiculously extremist state of affairs of automobile/fuel regulations/taxes/etc in Denmark is appropriate. The rest of Europe isn't that great either but Denmark is one of or the most insane examples (memory isn't clear on if there was another member state that was even worse). One of the things that makes me grateful to live in the USA - owning and operating a car doesn't bankrupt me, especially anything bigger than a clown car with any less than 50mpg.

jjuhl2• 8 years ago

I don't see why it's insane to put huge taxes on something that polutes our environment, is dangerous to people around them, causes a lot of noise and other irritations. Pushing more people towards electric and public transportation is only a good thing in my opinion. If you insist on a poluting private car, fine, just pay for it (big time).

icebraining2• 8 years ago

Considering that Denmark in 30th in the world in the number of cars per capita, above France, the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands, doesn't seem that problematic.

Doctor_Fegg2• 8 years ago

In the whole nation of Denmark, 26% of all sub-5km trips are by bike.

In Portland, the US's most celebrated cycle city, 6.3% of commuter journeys are by bike.

It looks to me like Denmark has it right; and that taxing polluting vehicles (you know, there's this thing called climate change?) is perhaps a better strategy than sneeringly calling them "clown cars".

NeedMoreTea3• 8 years ago

See, now I take the opposite view.

Denmark may have some fairly onerous taxes, but that seems to be more than made up for by the quality of life, healthcare, education and so on. I have two good friends who moved from UK to Denmark, both high earners with families, neither would consider returning to the UK for a millisecond. As UK austerity continues and Brexit nears I'm thinking of it myself.

The USA's ridiculously high subsidy of petrol has struck me as crazy ever since my first visit in the 80s or 90s, and I rented a "standard" car that turned out to be as large as a small aircraft carrier. It handled like an aircraft carrier too.

dsfyu404ed10• 8 years ago

I never understood how anyone possibly felt the ridiculously extremist state of affairs of automobile/fuel regulations/taxes/etc in Denmark is appropriate.

You will never understand it because those people have a completely different world view than you or I when it comes to taxation. You will also probably never understand a lot of other crazy things that people with different world views believe.

The idea that taxes and government involvement in everything should be the minimum possible is foreign to them in the same way that a woman is CEO of GM and that's not a problem to us is completely foreign to the Taliban.

Obviously it's a two way street and the idea that someone would want gas to cost $5/L and that someone might not be ok with a female CEO is equally foreign and impossible for us to relate to.

reacharavindh2• 8 years ago

I wrote the comment you responded to. I live in Denmark, and here is my take on this.

It's not as extreme that I'd call it "extremist state of affairs". Fewer cars are for the greater good. However, what pisses me the most is how it is really implemented. There is the famous 150% tax when you buy a car, and then there is a green tax every 6 months/quarter that is based on how efficient &a safe your car is. I'm all for the green tax. Heck, double or triple it, and make the SUV drivers pay. But, the 150% tax IMO is lop sided policy. It lead to too many small cars(VW Up, Seat equivalent, and the like) because that's what common people can afford. Another side effect is that people tend to keep shitty cars much longer than rational, because they cannot afford a better car - throwing away all the emission savings in the wind(pun intended).

I think the law is made by politicians just based on life in Copenhagen, where you can use the trains and bike wherever. Public transportation is A-class, and you don't particularly need a car for the most part.

The rest of Denmark, where I live, public transport is not as good, and car becomes a necessity if you go to work outside the city. We're the collateral damage of the narrow minded policies.

/rant.

Denmark, as everyone here says is an excellent place to live, and I have a bigger list of positives to list, and a tiny list including this car tax to complain about.

GeneralMayhem2• 8 years ago

I never understood how anyone possibly felt the ridiculously extremist state of affairs of automobile/fuel regulations/subsidies etc in the United States is appropriate. The rest of the world isn't that great either but the United States is one of or the most insane example (memory isn't clear on if there's another major country that's even worse). One of the things that makes me ashamed to live in the USA - owning and operating a car in a spectacularly wasteful way doesn't pay for its own externalities, even anything bigger than an efficient people-mover with any less than 50mpg.

jopsen6• 8 years ago

On the environmental side keeping old cars longer actually makes sense. Because production of cars produces a lot of CO2.

But historically this was a trick to minimize the trade deficit, because we don't produce cars in Denmark.

Today, however, it's hard to get rid off this tax. Because you have to find the money, and as soon as you start talking about this tax people stop trading cars.

IMO, cars isn't where we need tax breaks it'll mean even more congestion in the roads. We need to invest the upcoming surpluses if you ask me.

rasz• 8 years ago

Europe isn't that great either but Denmark is one of or the most insane examples .... One of the things that makes me grateful to live in the USA - owning and operating a car doesn't bankrupt me

until you get into an accident severe enough to need extensive medical attention.

PopeDotNinja2• 8 years ago

I went to Denmark last year and spent two weeks driving all over the countryside, and likely would have been difficult to reach with an electric car. Many of the places I visited would not have been accessible via public transit. I'm curious how future generations will reach remote places as we move away from fossil fuels.

BTW, I loved Denmark :)

ainiriand• 8 years ago

I guess the solution is to provide more charging stations, isn't it? Looks pretty straightforward to me.

rcMgD2BwE72F4• 8 years ago

What's more widely distributed than electricity?

Annatar11• 8 years ago

Very straightforward. Now, who's going to foot that bill?

toomuchtodo3• 8 years ago

Is this not enough charging stations?

https://i.imgur.com/dd9Jdzf.png (Orange are high power chargers, green are lower power chargers, source is plugshare.com)

Annatar11• 8 years ago

For two million cars?

jillesvangurp2• 8 years ago

And that's not counting people's own charging points at home. Most people will rarely need a public one as they can probably do several of their daily commutes on a single charge.

ATsch2• 8 years ago

I presume that hybrid cars will solve this problem for remote travellers.

emodendroket• 8 years ago

Which you'd expect to basically become a niche case eventually.

interfixus2• 8 years ago

I live in the furthest, most godforsaken boondocks of Denmark. I see Teslas almost daily. Of course I do. There's probably nowhere in the country I couldn't reach on a single charge.

audunw• 8 years ago

How far ahead are you thinking?

BEVs are likely to match pure ICEVs (I.e. not counting hybrids) in range in the not too distant future. Yeah you could theoretically put in a bigger fuel tank, or bring extra gasoline. But I mean a standard light vehicle that doesn't sacrifice storage space.

Meanwhile, if you get enough EVs on the road, you'll soon have charging stations everywhere. We already see it here in Norway. Almost every roadside McDonalds have rapid chargers. There are a couple of supermarket chains that have gotten pretty good at having chargers in many of their supermarkets.

kwhitefoot3• 8 years ago

There are a couple of supermarket chains that have gotten pretty good at having chargers in many of their supermarkets.

Not where I am. I've recently driven several times from Drammen to Trondheim and never seen a charger at any of the supermarkets I passed on the way. I don't mean they don't exist, just that I didn't see them, can you list a few of them?

WhompingWindows• 8 years ago

Send yourself back in time to when less than 1% of the populace is using petrol cars to get around. In that timeframe of the early 1900's, it would've been incredibly hard to get around the rural areas as well, since they'd still be dominated by horse, foot, and perhaps bicycle traffic. Now, send yourself forward 100 years: it will be nearly impossible to use petrol-powered transport, and EV will be the standard.

Saying the current infrastructure is inadequate for a new mode of transport is a truism. Infrastructure takes decades to build out, of course EV's will not be expected to have huge charging infrastructures while less than 1% of cars are EV.

Long term, It'll be just as easy, if not easier, to get around in the future. Consider all the new transport tech that's emerging: electric bikes, scooters, fully self-driving vehicles, drones which can carry people, VTOL aircraft, hyperloop, etc. They are all more interesting and promising than the current noxious fume spewing transport. I'm excited for even 1/3 of those options to come to fruition :)

cptaj• 8 years ago

I absolutely agree with you about infrastructure. Its definitely coming and will cover most use cases.

But I do wonder how we're gonna cover that last mile. Adding hundreds of miles of range to an ICE car is hilariously simple, just a couple of plastic containers in the trunk and you're good to go.

Can't add extra batteries like that. Energy density is not a truism.

Maybe portable ICE generators, sort of like hybrid addons for full EVs.

I really liked the hybrid tech. I don't know why its not dominating.

walshemj5• 8 years ago

And people (peasants) lived and died in the same village there are good sides to increased mobility increased social mobility for one.

vidarh2• 8 years ago

Difficult why? It's a tiny country.

Skagen (Northernmost tip) to Flensburg in Germany is ~402km. Skagen to Copenhagen (East) is 410km. The longest reasonable point to point journey in Denmark is in the 550km or so range (e.g. Skagen to Lolland), though you can certainly end up with longer journeys if you pick more convoluted routes for sight-seeing and end up having to charge, this will not be a typical journey for most people. And most of the population is located within a much smaller part of the country.

And this is with 12 years to expand charging networks and for vehicles to increase range before a ban on new petrol/diesel car sales, and in other words many more years before everyone will be forced to use an electric.

PopeDotNinja2• 8 years ago

Difficult why? It's a tiny country.

You're not wrong. I was just wondering how people would get around.

Factors that made me wonder included:

- when you're sightseeing, it's faster to buy gas (in today's era) than to charge to full battery - the place I parked my car each night was not near a charging station and/or outlet - having infrastructure in place to drive all over makes means there's less friction to go to remote places, and if there's less demand for remote places in the future, there may be less infrastructure near those places

I'm not trying to make argue any specific point here. I was just wondering. And even though Denmark is a tiny country, many other are damn huge!

maaaats• 8 years ago

I biked through Denmark a few years back. It's a really small country. So a modern electric car would need like one stop to recharge in the middle somewhere?

jopsen6• 8 years ago

The local news is reporting the plan is to stop sales of diesel cars.

Not gasoline...

Regardless, if we force the market, electric cars will catch up. But bans probably won't do the trick, I bet it'll take incentives in terms of higher taxes on gasoline and lower on electric cars.

lazyjones• 8 years ago

Did any of these places lack electricity, or why do you think an electric car would have been problematic? I just came back from a 2800 Km trip through rural Italy (5 days) and had no issues at all (OK, except for crappy roads and bad Google Maps data routing me through buildings etc.).

fineline• 8 years ago

I used to think the same about where I live - Australia - a lot bigger and more sparsely populated than Denmark. But here is an article about the first woman (and second person) to drive around the country in an EV:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/12/how-much...

and two maps of the network in 2016 and 2018, showing the effort (by Tesla owners club!) in building out the network:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/12/how-much...

Yep they're not all superchargers, many are just EV friendly 240v hookups. But as the lady in the first article said "the reality is that if you can see the lights on, or that the kettle works, then you can charge".

Got me thinking about my next car. Or campervan. We often camp in caravan parks - with a 15 amp hookup plugged into the vehicle...

NTDF9• 8 years ago

This is great. I don't think we in the US realize how far ahead European countries are wrt EV. Their governments are working like startups to make this happen. Even if only cars get replaced (and not trucks or heavy vehicles), that's a huge boost.

Further, I think the biggest gains of this are in emerging countries like SE asia, India etc. where the cost of oil fuel is much higher than the US. The market size willing to ride on this tech is insane.

netcan3• 8 years ago

At the start, I thought these announcements and laws (eg Scotland) to ban ICE vehicles by 20XX were cheap politics. A promise Someone Else will deliver later, with credit due to you now.

I've come around though. I think all the bastardized carbon accounting, market based solutions are on average quite bad. The idea of a neutral, "market decides" policy is a myth. These things are complex, and that compmexity is an opportunity for regulatory capture.

For example, most European vehicle tax codes have been altered to reflect emissions.

The upshot is that (1) new vehicles are 20% ish more efficient (2) older vehicles become uneconomical faster (3) people who drive older vehicles clear pay more tax. (4) Switching from a 10yr old ICE hatchback to a new one can easily save you $500 pa. Going from a new "efficient" ICE to an electric will save you a fraction of that.

New car buyers pay less tax, old cars pay more. Vehicles hit junkyards faster. Manufacturers sell more cars. Over a decade we'll see a minor (maybe 20% at best) decrease in carbon emissions.

Very little environmental juice for a lot of poor and middle class squeeze. A nice little sales boost for VW.

There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of an outright ban. Ban ICEs. Ban commercial fishing. It worked for CFCs and market hunting. In retrospect, no one wishes we had split hairs with a complicated policy.

NickM• 8 years ago

I think all the bastardized carbon accounting, market based solutions are on average quite bad.

I'm curious, do you think the whole idea of a market-based solution is bad, or do you just think that actual real-world implementations have been lacking so far?

I mean, it seems to me that if you tax emissions strongly and uniformly enough, then at some point it has to have an impact. I think existing schemes have just been pretty weak.

I agree that carbon taxes can potentially hit poor and middle class folks unfairly hard, but this can easily be solved via carbon dividend type schemes.

admax88q• 8 years ago

I think existing schemes have just been pretty weak.

Most existing schemes seem to have been cleverly designed to avoid hitting certain industries with large enough lobbying power.

Taxing/banning/regulating specific polluters rather than pollution itself is just ripe for regulatory capture.

ip26• 8 years ago

It sounds like he's arguing not that the policies have been lacking oomph, but that the policies could never really hope to handle all the nuance. If you could only set up the incentives right, you'd get the right outcome, but maybe that's a perilous & incredibly difficult task.

maxxxxx3• 8 years ago

"I'm curious, do you think the whole idea of a market-based solution is bad, or do you just think that actual real-world implementations have been lacking so far?'

My theory is that the people push for market based solutions the most are usually the same people that are against regulations and taxes so whatever they come up with will usually be very weak. They certainly won't support taxation of carbon emissions to the degree that's necessary for real behavior.

munificent3• 8 years ago

it seems to me that if you tax emissions strongly and uniformly enough, then at some point it has to have an impact.

One way to look at that is that you're saying any market-based solution strong enough to be effective is indistinguishable from an outright ban.

We could, for example, discourage smoking by putting a $500 tax on each pack of cigarettes. But at that point, you may as well stop pretending and ban it outright.

Another way to look at it is that bans are fair because they apply to all people equally. Taxes unfairly punish the poor who have less discretionary income. (A $100 tax on cigarettes would drive most of the working and middle classes to quit, but there are certainly a number of rich folks who would keep on lighting up because $100 means little to them.)

netcan3• 8 years ago

I don't think the whole idea is bad. Market based public housing schemes can be quite good, for example.

I do think that making stuff more market based to avoid "picking winners" is probably a bad idea. We know what the winner is here, more or less. The winner is non-ICE vehicles. We should be backing that, not 25% more efficient engines.

eanzenberg• 8 years ago

Unfortunately, production of cars (and consumerism in general) is extremely bad for carbon emissions and for the environment. Carbon emissions from the production of 1 car generally rival the lifetime emissions from the tailpipe [1]. If you have no choice but to replace an old car for new then sure, get a more efficient one. If you're replacing cars every 3 years like an average westerner, given the age of cars I see on the road, you are doing extreme harm. Old cars that are running should be incentivized to continue to be on the road, barring any other pollutant or smog issues.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...

ashleyn• 8 years ago

Ironically, a big reason people buy new cars is because their old one failed emissions screening, and wasn't economical to repair.

jonknee• 8 years ago

If you're replacing cars every 3 years like an average westerner, given the age of cars I see on the road, you are doing extreme harm.

Those 3 year old cars aren't just scrapped, the used car market is much larger than the new car market.

FullyFunctional2• 8 years ago

Consumerism is bad for the planet, 100% true. However the "every 3 years like an average westerner" remark needs citation. In the context of the article (Denmark) it is certainly not true. Cars are so expensive (the 180% tax is absolutely real - I've paid it) that people hold on to cars longer and buy used more. In fact, the number of people with zero cars would be hard to believe if you come from California.

Alas, the politics are made by city people (who have access to really good public transport) and paid for by people in suburbia who _have_ to own a car to survive (and no, we can't just move everyone to the city).

EDIT: typos

bodas• 8 years ago

That would be fine except that cars release poison into the air, old cars especially. Eventually banning ICE cars is an essential public health measure.

IB8855883• 8 years ago

All the Life cycle analysis I've seen (don't have the sources handy) have shown that the vast majority of an ICE's car's impact is from the fuel that is burned and not from production, usually around 80% driving and less than 20% production.

synecdoche• 8 years ago

This is why I consider my 1990 Volvo a comparatively environmentally friendly car. Very reliable and much cheaper to maintain and repair than a new electronics laden alternative.

wil421• 8 years ago

If you're replacing cars every 3 years like an average westerner, given the age of cars I see on the road, you are doing extreme harm.

Do you have any sources for this claim? I think I only know of a single person who changes cars in 3 years due to leases and only did it once.

According to the US government the average age is 11, almost 12 years.[1]

[1]https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-truc...

skookumchuck5• 8 years ago

Which is why the "Cash for Clunkers" program was a giant environmental disaster. There's no way the fuel efficiency gains made up for the fuel burned manufacturing the car.

dsfyu404ed10• 8 years ago

There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of an outright ban. Ban ICEs. Ban commercial fishing. It worked for CFCs and market hunting. In retrospect, no one wishes we had split hairs with a complicated policy.

Bans are just as messy because what is and isn't subject to he ban results in just as much hair splitting as a complicated policy in the first place.

When we "ban" things there are almost always trade-offs. It makes sense to allow market hunting in some cases (wild hogs, whitetail deer in some areas). There's a case to be made for allowing the use of lead paint in some industrial applications.

yholio2• 8 years ago

I've come around though. I think all the bastardized carbon accounting, market based solutions are on average quite bad.

Carbon taxing works well when it's applied - but it's very hard to create the political consensus to impose it. For example, the high cost of fuel in Europe has driven cars to an average MPG equivalent of 45 versus the average of 33 in US. That's nothing to sneeze at, it's 40% more for a given amount of CO2 - and that's after the continous fuel efficiency improvements happening on both sides in recent decades: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/0...

However, the EU fuel taxes are not actually carbon taxes, they are road taxes. Imposing the same tax on industry and power generation, as pure carbon taxes, would have immense political blow back.

So I really wonder how do you think "ban all non-renewable electric stations and cement factories" would work if we can't even accept a 3-10% price increase on these products?

walshemj5• 8 years ago

Don't forget US Gallons are smaller than "proper" imperial ones

newnewpdro• 8 years ago

The comparison in the graph you linked isn't particularly useful.

The US, having cheap gasoline, uses gasoline vehicles in far more roles than say, the EU does, where diesel is far more common. "Light commercial" might as well read "should have been diesel" from an MPG standpoint.

Gibbon1• 8 years ago

I think the issue with carbon taxes is a 10-20% reduction isn't enough. A 75% reduction is needed. Which means some sectors the reduction will have to be more than that.

At that point bans make more sense.

ciconia• 8 years ago

Switching from a 10yr old ICE hatchback to a new one can easily save you $500 pa. Going from a new "efficient" ICE to an electric will save you a fraction of that.

Not true. From personal experience driving an electric costs one fifth the cost of fuel per km. That's an enormous saving.

rootusrootus7• 8 years ago

A Prius gets around 55 mpg, which with gas at 3.25/gal and electricity at 0.11/kWh means a Chevy Bolt, for example, costs just a little over half what the electric does, per mile. The electric also has a significantly higher capital cost and depreciation rate. I wouldn't be at all surprised if over, say, five years, the Prius has a cheaper TCO.

indemnity• 8 years ago

In my country (New Zealand) the fuel tax goes into the infrastructure fund which keeps roads maintained. It also funds public transport.

We’re going go have to come up with creative solutions when most vehicles are electric.

snowwindwaves• 8 years ago

In NZ Diesel vehicles have to pay a tax per km driven but it is not paid at the pump. You buy a sticker that says what odometer reading you have paid up to. Get a fine if odometer reads higher than sticker.

Same mechanism can work for electric cars

jacquesm• 8 years ago

A side effect, intended or not, is that poorer people who can not afford new and more efficient cars end up paying more for the fuel and more for the tax.

skookumchuck5• 8 years ago

Bans are economically inefficient because they allow for zero flexibility. There will always be cases where an ICE is more appropriate, and it's very costly to try to lobby for an exemption.

A carbon emissions tax is the right solution. Just keep raising it until one gets the effect wanted - a wholesale switch to electric.

hueving• 8 years ago

There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of an outright ban. Ban ICEs.

Do this and a massive chunk of the population will die shortly after. There is no alternative to farm and transport food at the scale required for the modern population.

Banning CFCs isn't even comparable because all of modern civilization wasn't built on them like it has been with the portable energy enabled by ICE.

There is no viable electric-only solution for the freight rail network, the air freight network, or even the road freight network.

robben1234• 8 years ago

Vehicles hit junkyards faster

not really. They just migrate faster to Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.

mrguyorama3• 8 years ago

As an idealist I'm glad to see the world transition away from fossil fuels in any capacity.

As a "Car Guy" however, there is a small sadness that I won't really get to experience much of the internal combustion engine. I feel like I was born a decade too late and a lot too poor. Similar to some techies who feel the missed the early internet.

FranOntanaya• 8 years ago

The enjoyable cars and the context where they are driven e.g. tracks, events, may not change that much.

The boring utilitarian combustion engines the large majority of humanity has ever experienced probably won't be missed, though. Boring cars were still boring a decade ago.

lsiunsuex3• 8 years ago

As a car guy also - I've thought about this... also.

Best plan is pick a few "classics" be it 60s muscle cars or current muscle cars, and buy them before they hit scrap yards or are destroyed.

Not an easy thing to do of course - cost of car, storage, restoration if it's old, but they can be saved and kept as toys.

Restoring a 60s camaro has always been a dream of mine.

floatrock6• 8 years ago

Why the sadness? As a "Car Guy" I'm thrilled about electric! Instant torque and acceleration, way more responsive than ICE. Just the other month there was the story where an electric shattered all the previous Pikes Peak records: https://www.teslarati.com/vw-id-r-electric-vehicle-pikes-pea...

I mean, yeah, it doesn't have the same growl, but if you want raw performance, I'll take my spaceship whirl over rube goldberg-like thousands-of-tiny-explosions any day of the week.

lsiunsuex3• 8 years ago

the growl / sound / smell. The ability to modify, upgrade, "wrench on a car on the weekend"

the ability to get beat on the track 1 weekend, drop a couple grand on new parts the next, then go back and beat them the following weekend.

car shows and seeing a super charged mustang or camaro or twin turbos or something completely different someone came up with an idea for and built.

the same way us programmers tinker and build stuff for the hell of it, is the same was us car guys build stuff and tinker for the hell of it. some take it seriously and go to track, some (me) just do it cause it's a nice break.

spending a day installing a new exhaust can be fun. playing with 240volts of batteries (or whatever it is, lol) (if theres anything to play with) - not so much i'm thinking, lol...

mrguyorama3• 8 years ago

Well seeing as being a hobbyist mechanic and a hobbyist electrician aren't even in the same ballpark, it's not hard to see how interest in the internal combustion engine does not transfer.

outworlder4• 8 years ago

Oh yeah, the growl. The constant reminder that your gas is being spent to generate sound waves, not to propel the car.

mattlondon5• 8 years ago

People still ride horses for fun. Fossil fuel cars will be around for a lot longer after the ban on sales is in place even if people are just driving them around for kicks (...assuming they are not totally banned from running entirely eventually due to emissions - I cant see that happening for a while though)

s0rce• 8 years ago

While few people still use horses for transportation there are many people who still have horses as a hobby and they are readily available with many places to take them. I suspect internal combustion cars will remain in a similiar hobby niche. There will be mechanics, race tracks, drag strips, etc for a while.

meguest3• 8 years ago

Except that people can still breed horses which keeps the cost of horse riding reasonable.

In contrast it will no longer be legal to manufacture and sell ICE cars, and so the price of these cars will go up as demand outgrows supply, making it financially unattainable for all but the rich.

Annatar11• 8 years ago

Good luck with that, especially with banning ultramodern, low emission, high performance diesel cars.

I was in Denmark last year to see what's going on over there and I observed the infrastructure very carefully: there is no widespread electric infrastructure for cars; it will be a gargantuan investment of epic proportions. Even if the infrastructure is put in, the current battery technology is only barely adequate for daily city driving. Everything else - forget it! So this is banking on future infrastructure improvement in batteries and recharging, and it's especially banking on invention of fast recharging. And it's assuming diesel engines and emissions will stand still, with no further improvements. Just wondering, Danes like to travel and they like to hitch a camping trailer to their cars and drive all over Europe; how will they be able to do that if their government bans sales of cars with internal combustion engines?

Whatever stuff that government is on, it's gotta be potent; I'd like some of whatever they're smoking.

alkonaut• 8 years ago

The last gen diesels are about to be banned (e.g Stockholm and other cities eg in Germany). I expect Euro6 diesels to follow within 10 years and the number of cities with bans to grow.

Charging infrastructure needs to be expanded everywhere but that needs to happen regardless. The need will just be more acute. Also note most in Europe have 230V at home including a lot of places in the Nordic countries that have 230V at every parking space for multi tenant housing for car heaters. Those are very handy for an EV parked overnight.

The holiday issue is a real one. I drive a diesel that does 1000km in one go. I use that range in one day maybe 2-3 days per year during holidays. That would be impossible with an EV. I can get where I want but it would require a lot more planning and longer travels and recharge waits.

petermonsson3• 8 years ago

I’m a Dane, I have leased a 24kwh BEV a few years ago. The charging infrastructure is fine and it is getting better. Denmark is not that big. I had a 30km commute each way. I live in an apartment, so that means public charging, which was no problem. I got 99 km at 110km/h on a full charge which means a 60 kwh battery will take me between the two furthest points in Denmark on two quick charges.

The only parts that sucks about BEVs is that you can’t have a trailer attached and the price.

outworlder4• 8 years ago

Even if the infrastructure is put in, the current battery technology is only barely adequate for daily city driving.

Barely adequate? We are reaching almost 500km on a charge now (around 300km is more common). This is Denmark we are talking about, not Russia.

and it's especially banking on invention of fast recharging

You mean under 30 minutes? How often do you need that? Road trips?

Note that they are not banning hybrids, which will take care of your road trip needs just fine.

Annatar11• 8 years ago

"You mean under 30 minutes? How often do you need that? Road trips?"

Of course and of course!

"Note that they are not banning hybrids,"

Yeah but hybrids suck: gasoline automatics, and except for the Volvo, ugly sedans. If there were more sportwagon diesel hybrids with manual transmissions, that'd be a different story, but there aren't and probably won't be.

And what will happen to car enthusiasts in Denmark if this legislature is enacted?

moneil971• 8 years ago

The more countries that commit to this, the more innovation we'll see, happy to see this being taken seriously!

femidav7• 8 years ago

Quite the opposite, actually. Governmental regulations kill innovations.

jillesvangurp2• 8 years ago

I'm guessing economies of scale will finish the job somewhere over the next decade already. If you operating any kind of vehicles commercially, eliminating fuel cost should be high on your agenda. Whether it is taxi's, buses, police vehicles, delivery vehicles, etc. For that kind of market what matters is the total cost of ownership. This is why many taxis were early adopters of hybrids. As soon as they become affordable enough, they'll be going full electric.

Currently battery cost and production volumes are the main limitation. As that improves, the market will gobble up whatever is being produced. This just puts the pressure on a bit more. 2030 is not even that ambitious.

rootusrootus7• 8 years ago

Seems like we need to see about 10K less capital cost, and/or less atrocious depreciation, and TCO should come into line with a comparable ICE. Solve that and maintain the range we've got in the latest crop of EVs, and I think they'll take over pretty steadily.

m3at• 8 years ago

It's a step forward. However I'm surprised that the focus is still on individual cars, construction of an ev is still quite polluting.

I expected to see suggestions about increase in public transportation coverage and frequency to compensate, or maybe steps towards self-driven collective fleets (2030 seems ambitious).

I don't know Denmark, are public transportation already well developed? Or am I not cynical enough and it's just an economically driven decision?

KozmoNau77• 8 years ago

Public transit is relatively well developed. We're a relatively small country, very flat and reasonably densely populated. Obviously public transport is most well-developed in the larger cities, with several expansions in progress.

But even rural areas are serviced by trains and bus lines. It may be slower in rural areas than taking the car, but you can make it work. At least you can do with one car per household instead of two.

xyproto• 8 years ago

This is a solid move. Better air quality and smaller chance of natural disasters benefits us all.

snambi• 8 years ago

denmark is the size of bayarea. Yes, they can move to electric cars, because a tesla will NOT run out of battery by travelling all over the country.

OTOH, do they even need cars? Why can't denmark just use public transportation and abolish cars altogether?

petermonsson3• 8 years ago

Rural areas are neither economical nor convenient for public transportation.

Zekio3• 8 years ago

because public transportation in Denmark basically costs the same as owning a small car

noobermin• 8 years ago

People especially here constantly rail against Europe, specifically their start-up scene, against taxes, against regulations, etc. At the same time, our cities are unlivable, inaccessible, crowded, our infrastructure is falling apart, a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor causing increases in homelessness in cities and opiod addiction in rural areas. Western Europe isn't utopia, but in many areas, their policies are actually in the public interest and raise most people up[0].

[0] Perhaps not natives, but that's another story.

BonjelaSoup• 8 years ago

"People especially here constantly rail against Europe"
"our cities"

Where is "here" and "our cities"?

nojvek• 8 years ago

Most likely US

stephengillie17• 8 years ago

People love to cherry pick a statistic from one European city, and ask why all of the American empire can't be like that.

/s/public transportation/health care/cars/etc.

unit91• 8 years ago

our cities are unlivable

false by definition

tengbretson• 8 years ago

a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor causing increases in homelessness in cities

For starters, I'd be curious to see a source on whether or not the United States even has a significantly increasing number of homeless per-capita.

Secondly, even if that is the case, the causal relationship between the wealth gap and homelessness would be speculative at best.

crote• 8 years ago

Let's see what happens when you hit rock bottom in The Netherlands, so zero wealth and zero income. I'm assuming you're about 30, single, and have no kids.

First, there is social housing available at a price between €335 and €710. True, you may have to wait a little for a house, but if it's a critical situation you will get priority. As you have no income, you will also get rent subsidies. After those, you'll pay roughly €250 / month for rent.

Second, healthcare. Health insurance is mandatory and covers practically everything, so you'll still have this. No need to worry about healthcare costs. You still have to pay for it. With a €385 / year copay, it costs you €94 / month. With a €885 copay, it'll cost you €75 / month. As you have no income, the government will subsidize your healthcare for €94 / month. Net cost: between €0 and €-20 / month. Yes, you can actually profit on healthcare.

Third, welfare. About €930 / month.

Let's look at some basic needs: heating is about €75, electricity is €28, water is €10, a 50/5 internet connection is €25, a basic 100 minutes, 100 sms, 1 GB internet mobile phone connection is about €7. There are some municipal taxes, but you don't have to pay any of them because you have no income.

This leaves you with about €535 a month for food, clothing, and all your other stuff. Note that I intentionally did not mention any car costs: you don't need it for grocery shopping, and you don't need it for a job, so any use is only incidental. If you even want to keep it, the main cost would be insurance, and that starts at €20 / month.

So let's look at the original question: is there a causal relationship between the wealth gap and homelessness? I'd say there is, because when rich people pay slightly higher taxes, literally nobody has to be homeless because the government will pay for their safety net. So how many people depend on this? Roughly 6%. This means that, on average, every working person has to pay €75 / month in taxes for a guaranteed safety net, including housing and healthcare. If you consider the amount of taxes you pay, that's not such a bad deal.

calcifer• 8 years ago

Perhaps not natives, but that's another story

At the risk of inviting some xenophobic and/or racist commentary, I'll bite. What's your story?

lewis500• 8 years ago

Our cities are "crowded" and "unlivable"?

If they're so unlivable then why do so many people want to live there that they're crowded? Especially when the country is full of suburbs...suburbs, where, in fact, most people live.

Our cities are way less dense than many European cities. In fact they are way less dense than they used to be in many cases.

nottorp• 8 years ago

Isn't Denmark the country that taxes new car purchases 120% of the price of the car already? I don't think they're a good indicator of the overall attitude of the EU.

Zekio3• 8 years ago

yes, and you were close with 120% but it was recently reduced to 180% from somewhere north of that

KozmoNau77• 8 years ago

Not quite.

It used to be 180% for the high tier, 105% for the low tier. I don't know the cutover points used back then.

Today, it's 85% for the low tier (below ~190K DKK) and 150% for the high tier above that. The cutover point will increase to account for inflation and such.

Necromant20052• 8 years ago

Electro cars are great, until you start count. Ok, if Denmark population is about 5.7M and based on aerostat (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...) there're around 500 cars per 1000 citizen. It means country holds ~2.5M cars right now. In general (based on https://www.worlddata.info/europe/denmark/energy-consumption...) every Denmark's citizen consumes 20kh per day. 1 of 2 citizen has a car. Electro car charging requires 50kh (average electro car consumption). So It means Denmark must increase electric production in 5!!! times. In order just a charge those new 2.5M cars. I'm now talking about infrastructure requirements for this signigficant electric consumption increase, I'm pointing to the basic knowledge (by wikipedia) that around 50% of energy comes from coal and all renewable are less than 5%. COAL! MORE COAL I SAID!

floatrock6• 8 years ago

Yes you need more electricity but that’s offset by reduced gasoline. And you lower your total energy consumption because electric cars are 3-4x as efficient.

Yes, this requires more energy infrastructure. But note that in the US the majority of new generation capacity added in the last few years has been renewable. And it’s not because we’ve passed any carbon tax, it’s because it’s now the most cost effective form. The bean counters love it.

And of that new generation capacity that is wind, the largest manufacturer of wind turbines is Vestas, a Danish company.

petermonsson3• 8 years ago

The last coal plant in Denmark will be retired in 2028.

Current regulation requires large district heating to produce electricity (which is no longer economical due to abundance of cheap wind power) and this delays the conversion of the last coal plant.

aembleton2• 8 years ago

That assumes that every car in Denmark will consume 50kwh per day. The 64kw Kona Electric will do 300 miles according to the WLTP [1]. So, that assumes every car does 234 miles every day, or over 85k miles per year.

I can't find any solid data, but I'd assume its closer to 10k miles per year, or an eighth of what you're suggesting. That is still a lot, but it is achievable especially with more offshore wind.

1. https://www.hyundai.co.uk/new-cars/kona-electric

femidav7• 8 years ago

Just look how much gasoline and diesel was sold. Anything else will give you tremendously wrong result.

femidav7• 8 years ago

LOL, no. Denmark used 67.5TWh gasoline and diesel fuel last year, due to better efficiency of the electric drivetrain it's equivalent to roughly 20TWh of electricity. Denmark also used 46TWh electricity last year, so they would need to increase their production by 43.5%. It's quite high actually, for Germany the same figure is just 31% (190TWh and 610TWh). All data can be found here https://www.statbank.dk/ENE2HA.

Necromant20052• 8 years ago

Coal price will rise. Oil will fall. Gas'll rise.

bachbach• 8 years ago

Atsushi Horiba seems to think this is rubbish.

Does he have a point?

bcheung• 8 years ago

I have a hard time believing that the vast majority of cars won't already be 100% electric by then. Also, I doubt there will be nearly as many personal cars and that there will be much more ride sharing and public transportation options.

rb666• 8 years ago

This is really the only, and best, solution. It's simple and clear. Car manufactures cannot get around it with their bag of tricks. Plus, 12 years is a long long time.

rrcaptain• 8 years ago

While this is a good thing, it's not nearly sufficient to stop climate catastrophe.

femidav7• 8 years ago

Nothing can stop the next climate catastrophe. Which is the next ice age by the way, and not some mythical global warming.

femidav7• 8 years ago

Incredibly dumb move. CO2 is our friend, not an enemy.

Denmark to ban petrol and diesel car sales by 2030

Related Stories