Top-Selling Cars In Norway Now Electric Cars (Two Months In A Row) — 4 Reasons Why

Are you not from America? cuz ya, that’s a huge issue to people here, executive to plebeian pay ratio is and has been out of control and rising for like my whole life ( I’m 24)

Slavery existed for literally thousands of years because it was the most economical system at the time. The early capitalism made it less economical and that is the main reason why it disappeared.

Whatever label you want to attach to Lincoln, the main reason he succeeded was ,that the North economy thanks to more modern economical system was stronger than south.

Industrial era invented in Britain. That is BTW why Britain was first and strongest opponent of slavery at the time, British Navy introduced Atlantic maritime patrols to capture slave ships and free their captives long before Lincoln. Finally society could afford to be ‘more moral’. However moral never really drives humanity.The quick rise of China to become the strongest economy in the world within next 20-50 years is quickly challenging “moral” libertarian model of the West.

“Bad” is an opinion that is using certain moral code. Abortion is “bad” by many moral codes and it is thriving. Colonialism was economical for a few hundred years and flourished therefore. It become outdated and less economical. The era of Western ideals is now coming to an end to be replaced by raising Asian eastern models.

Swearing to the Pope is in a poorer western countries that were actually late to the capitalism. The richer ones are on paper protestant, but in reality pagan. Western ideals recently are democracy, free markets and even more recently more and more socialism fueled by Marks theories.

Profitable does not mean the most efficient. Germany and USA become regional powers despite having very little colonies in comparison to Spain, France or Great Britain.

Wars existed long before colonialism on every continent. If colonialism ruined Europe by causing wars that only proves my point that economically it turned out to be outdated and has been replaced by new system that does not lead to the ruining war. It seems that socialism is the leading model for western civilization these days.

Britain is not catholic and industrialized before Belgium.

Right. I see democracy flourishing in China.

Goverment decisions are driven by strong will to win next election.

You curry to the favor of those who help you win the next election. It is very simple. Big oil interests were often aligned with society interests. What was good for General Motors at the time truly was good for America. That is why America become world power. It was Henry Ford who created rich, influential middle class that the world has never seen before.

It is big unions, big green movement, big pharma, big movie industry, big media these days that help you win elections way more than big oil.

Yes

“It was Henry Ford who created rich, influential middle class that the world has never seen before.”

New Deal.

I’m glad you acknowledge the New Deal made the middle class.

“New deal extended the depression and US needed WWII to finally stop it.”

How does that make sense at all?

Let me try:

Dialysis extended the Kidney failure and I needed a transplant to be cured.

Perhaps you’re one of those people who think sub-Saharan Africa is a country rather than a collection of countries, some of which are moving along quite well.

Now let’s get back to the topics appropriate to this site.

Renewable energy is doing a great job of reducing energy poverty in the third world.

The entirety of the Washington Consensus must be killed in order for sub-Saharan Africa to industrialize.

“Energy always ids doing good job raising people out of poverty. The cheaper the energy is the better.”
So renewables?

The why are Third World countries going all in on renewable energy?

And why is wind the cheapest source of electricity in America today?

“They cannot afford to buy coal or oil. Burning local wood turn out to be cheaper.”

So if they can’t afford to coal or oil why are they buying solar, wind and geothermal?

“Regarding America. Sure. Wind is cheap in North Dakota. Sad there is very little industry or population there. Try Michigan or Ohio. See how many plants you can run on wind.”

The average PPA for wind is $0.04/kWh, it doesn’t get cheaper then that for new power.

The one or two wind farms that are killing endangered species will have to solve that problem.

Since coal kills 35x more birds than wind per GWh electricity produced it’s a matter of going with the least harmful technology.

You have no clue as to the amount of fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable generation being built.

In fact, you’re pretty clueless in general.

That’s a dumb statement. It shows that you do not understand the cost of building a new fossil fuel plant.

Oops. Statements. It also shows you that you don’t understand wind resources.

I took the industry build for war to end depression and make people rich.

No, big industry builds rich middle class. However big industry is not sufficient. It also has to be free market capitalism. Big industry build by Soviet Russia Big Government brought unbelievable poverty and environmental disaster to the world.

Compare average Soviet citizen to German citizen in the same time period. Of course, you can always claim that Russians are genetically more stupid than Germans. You seem to be blaming rich white man for all world problems so clearly you have racist world view.

What a sad joke. You should tell that to the Ukrainians especially in 1920’s. You have no clue what you talking about. Since your knowledge of Soviet Russia is anecdotal, please, explain me how come East Germany and West Germany ended up so different ? Basically the same nation, same cultural roots, same industrial level at the start. Why the hell East Germans wanted to leave their paradise ?

P.S. Still claiming that the government had nothing to do with building factories during World War II?

You: “I took the industry build for war to end depression and make people rich.”

Me: “So Big Government?”

You: “No, big industry builds rich middle class. However big industry is not sufficient. It also has to be free market capitalism.”

Me: “So you’re claiming that the government had nothing to do with building factories during World War II”

You: [Dodges]

Me: “Still claiming that the government had nothing to do with building factories during World War II?”

You: “I didn’t said that. I said, that it is private industry that pulls people out of poverty.”

Me: …

…

Did you enjoy the Great Recession of 2008?

If so, thank Reagan for talking us into fewer regulations.

Oh right, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, it caused the great recession by interfering in the free market.

What, you want to know why it took 30 years and how it did that when the loans make under had a lower default rate then other loans?

It’s very simple, it caused the great recession via shut up hippie.

“It’s equally nonsensical as blaming Reagan 20 years after he left WH especially after phenomenal success of rebuilding US economy after disastrous Carter years.”

Reagen changed the political climate away from big government. He also quadrupled the debt.

“Clearly recession was caused by housing loans that were politically correct but economically nonsensical for the banks and that is the area where Democrats happen to take leadership.”

Clearly the recession was caused by adorable puppies not being kicked enough. You can say something was clearly caused by something else, now that don’t necessarily make it so.

If that was true why did loans made under the Community Reinvestment Act have a lower default rate? Might it be because the act had regulations in place to prevent the kind of bankster thievery like what actually caused the crash?

You don’t count Bush 41 as an extension of Reagan? OK then he tripled it.

So apparently you support sending money to the Saudis?

How do you run a gasmobile off of coal?

P.S. Reagan tripled the debt, your response?

Where are these numbers from? And more importantly when?

P.S. Trillions wasted on the military when reinstating the grain embargo would work just as well? Not smart. Also what happened to tax-rates about the same time the debt started skyrocketing?

P.P.S. I hate the Saudi government because it’s a violent backwards theocratic absolute monarchy.

IEA

http://www.iea.org/

Can’t you find anything yourself ?

http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/USA4.pdf

No, these guys are living in fantasy world. I gave the link the the website that has very rich data for many countries. I assume that any person with minimum brain can do the research on the website. Here is the link for those unable to use internet:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2013.pdf

Coal (and fossil fuels) will remain main source of energy for many decades.Except biomass most of so called “green energy” remains insignificant blip.

You are entitled to have your own opinion.

Since when Germany is part of USA ?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/

Another dumb claim.

A truly free market leads to monopolies with a very few extremely rich individuals and the vast majority of people living in extreme poverty.

I’m quite unimpressed with your facts twisting ability.

Please give us a link to back up that claim.

WWII ended the Great Depression. And I believe that is what Paul has stated. If you’ve got evidence to the contrary then present it.

But that does not mean Roosevelt’s programs did nothing to improve conditions for Americans. That’s an idiotic claim.

Show me where Krugman stated that Roosevelt’s programs did noting to change the Depression.

“You can certainly spend money you don’t have to make people feel better in the short term but it is damaging in the long term. Even for government there is no free lunch.”

Do you know nothing about economics or history?

Here’s what you said –

” Krugman admits Roosevelt’s programs did nothing to change the depression”

Are you the dishonest person you seem to be in this exchange?

Let me fill you in a bit. I was born during WWII. My parents, my aunts and uncles, my grandparents and many of the people I knew growing up had lived through the Great Depression.

From their experiences I am very aware that the programs that FDR instituted made massive differences in the lives of people who were incredibly harmed by the state of the economy.

And out of those programs come the safety nets that protect is today.

And how exactly would you do that ? I consider Unions, political groups such as Green Movement, or Woman Rights movement etc. etc. equally influencing (corrupting) political process.

Thank you for the leftist talking points. You are presuming that only rich white men run things. That is blatantly nonsense since the White House is run for the last 6 years by an African American. The second world power is completely run by Asians. In your world we should have dictatorship of enlightened community organizers ? It was already tired in Soviet Russia. You should try to live in such country for a few years like I did.

There is no such thing as “position support”. Influence organizations pay money to buy advertisement where they present their point of view. In fact unions do that often against the will on their individual members who pay fees. We could see that in Wisconsin where you cant even work as a teacher without paying bribe to the teachers union regardless of who you support. I like to be informed by both sides. You would like to censorship your opponents. There is nothing new in it. All leftist movements are strong proponents of censorship.

In any event the biggest donations to the last presidential campaign were $715 million to Barack Obama, $446 million to Mitt Romney (you were saying something about rich white man running things …). Of those donations the biggest donors were:

Lawyers $28 millions to Obama
Communication / electronics $ 20 million to Obama
Finance / Insurance/ Real Estate $20 million to Obama
Ideological / single issue $17 million to Obama (here are your concerned citizens groups).

And way, way down the list: your “big oil” $2 million to Obama.

Very similar picture for Romney with slightly lower overall sums.

Data can be easily found. So, please, stop the talking points.

Perhaps. It still proves that “big oil” influence is a myth and “concerned citizens” and “community organizers” are equally corrupting force.

With $2 million donation big oil influence is another myth manufactured by the left. Ordinary people can go and vote whoever they want to. Obama win is a proof that rich white man is another one of those myths. The mythical rich white man would be clearly Romney supporter. You still cam blame The Jews and Masons.

Correct. Burning gasoline instead of coal is a positive step.

Perhaps. At least I know fluently more languages.

“Gas cars deliver massive health and environmental consequences”. That is BS. Power generation is the main source of CO2 emissions. Therefore electric cars are making things worse.

Globally coal is the dominant power energy source and will remain so for few hundred of years.

That’s a prediction that’s likely to fall flat on its butt….

Let’s look at coal consumption by country for the major coal users and see what the likelihood of continued/increased use might be.

#1 China. Consumed 50.2% of the world’s total coal consumed in 2012.

China has capped coal use starting in 2015 and set the cap at the 2011 level. In 2011 China burned 1760.8 million tons “oil equivalent”. That rose 6.4% in 2012. The amount could rise for another year or two but all that extra over-cap amount will have to be dropped.

China has allowed more coal burning for a limited time while it brings lower carbon generation online. And China has announced that it is very serious about stopping growth in greenhouse gas emission by (hopefully) 2025. China has a history of meeting its clean energy goals early.

#2 US. Consumed 11.7% of world total in 2012.

The US has 150 coal plants scheduled for early closure with some already closed. It’s possible that new EPA regulations will close over 100 more. The US has basically quit building new coal plants.

Hard to burn more coal when you don’t have the capacity.

#3 India. 8% of the world total in 2012.

India has just announced a carbon tax on coal with the proceeds to go to solar. This is a thumb on the scale that will most likely reduce their coal consumption.

#4 Japan. 3.3% of world consumption in 2012.

Japan is considering construction of some new coal plants to replace existing nuclear plants. They are going to have to decide whether to go this route and abandon their CO2 commitments or whether to put more effort into solar, offshore wind and geothermal.

#5 Russia. 2.5% of 2012 world total.

Who knows? Tsar Putin is a loose canon.

#6 South Africa. 2.4% of 2012 world total.

South Africa has major plans to install more renewables. A quick search found that SA has built no new coal plants in the last 15 years and a planned one has been “delayed”.

#7 South Korea. 2.2% of 2012 world consumption.

South Korea has given the go ahead for eight new coal plants to be built by 2027. This would increase their capacity by 8,000 megawatts. This would bring their total capacity to 30,080 megawatts. That’s a 36% increase in a 2.2% world share, a 0.8% increase for the world.

#8 Germany. 2.1% of the 2012 world consumption.

Germany is currently completing construction of 11.3 GW of new coal capacity. When they are fully operational 18.5 GW of existing, less efficient coal plants will be closed. German utilities recently called for the closure of 3.1 GW of the old 11.3 GW.

The new plants will be much more efficient and they will be capable of load-following, so the 39% reduction in capacity will actually be a larger reduction in coal consumption.

That’s 82.4% of the world’s coal consumption in 2012. South Korea and Japan might go up a bit, it looks like other countries are more likely to drop consumption levels.

So this coming increase and continued use in world coal consumption, where’s it going to be happening? It looks like possible generation capacity increases in South Korea and Japan will more than be offset by capacity decreases in the US and Germany. And China is going to make a large consumption cut.

Is it likely that a small user country is likely build a lot more coal plants and pay for imported coal? (Remember shipping costs.) Or are they likely to look to renewables which will be faster and cheaper?

Even Australia which produces 6.3% of the world’s coal and burns only 1.3% is cutting consumption.

http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/statistical-review/statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013.pdf

Did you notice that your chart stops at 2011?

Did you read what I wrote?

China has set several wind and solar installation targets and met all or most early.

China has passed the legislation to cap coal.

You are free to disbelieve if that’s what you need to do.

China:

http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/CHINA2.pdf

USA:

http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/USA2.pdf

India:

http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/INDIA2.pdf

etc, etc,
Fossil fuels total for what ? ~90%. Sure coal is low for now. Cracking and gas are cheaper and easier to process for now. Except oil will run out within few decades. Known coal will last several hundred years.

Dream on. When technology is promising it takes over the world in less than 10 years these days. Solar will run garden lights and few fanatics homes. Without heavy government subsidies solar energy would die within a year because it is hopelessly uncompetitive. It might be 200 years from now when we run out of oil and burn half of the coal. But then probably Hydrogen fusion will replace as much more dense and reliable source.

Oh really ? If it is so cheap why almost no new house construction is using it ? All those builders are in conspiracy ?

They haven’t adapted yet.

Do you have any clue how long it takes for an entire industry to change practices?

Walmart is going crazy with solar.

You didn’t answer my questions… have you seen the graphs of the price of solar electricity falling over time?

Charts by ANYONE that have the year on the x-axis and the price per watt of solar cells on the y-axis. Have you looked at any of those?

I don’t know, why don’t you find one?

That’s not the important point. The important point is how quickly the price has been falling, and PROJECTING THAT INTO THE FUTURE.

You said coal would be around for centuries.

I said no, in less than 100 years solar would replace all coal because of the exponentially declining cost.

You say “what about the price RIGHT NOW?”

The price right now doesn’t matter. It’s the overall trend. Solar WILL replace coal by the end of the century.

Some say that the moon is made of blue cheese.

I suspect you made a mistake with 30 kW for $40k. That’s only $1.33/W. If prices were that low everyone would be lining up for solar.

Why don’t you slow down the posting and read replies?

I already told you. The average US price, EOY 2013 was $4.59/watt. Some installations are getting under $3/watt but there are some places where the cost is quite high, almost $8/watt.

“Energy density” is almost entirely worthless.

It’s why we don’t run our society on anti-matter.

Without government subsidies solar would have died. Probably would have died. But, thankfully, some of our elected officials had the foresight to help solar develop as our tax dollars have help so many other technologies get a firm footing.

Thirty years back solar panels were around $100/watt. Now they cost less than $1/watt, a 100x price decrease.

Solar is now selling for ~6 cents (no subsidies) which makes it cheaper than new coal or new nuclear. The invisible hand of the market will shove coal and nuclear aside as it gathers in solar and wind generation.

Ain’t capitalism wonderful?

Don’t know where you live. By the end of 2013 the total was somewhere around 400,000.

Our prices are still very high. EOY 2013 the average residential price was $4.59/watt. Solar is being installed on rooftops in the UK, Germany and Australia for about $2/watt.

If you live in a place with low electricity prices and not a lot of sunshine then it should be understandable that you aren’t seeing much solar.

I figured it wasn’t in the US SW where solar on rooftops has become quite common.

And I don’t see much reason for your latest posts.

Why don’t you do some reading and catch up with what is happening with renewable energy and EVs? You’re knowledge-lite.

Your rant on EVs is full of incorrect statements.

EV sales are growing at a good rate. Faster that hybrids did when they first came to market.

You’ve had Tesla’s strategy explained to you.

Let’s take a look at solar and wind growth in the US.

So much for your claims….

I’m in Ontario and I see solar panels often.

And where exactly do you see them in large numbers ?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1430161-in-summary-the-tesla-model-s-is-a-dirty-car

Equally good to the proofs raised by the Church of Global Warming.

What physics ? Did you took your science classes in USA ? That would explain a lot.

Gasoline tax to discourage use of particular product means that government is using tax system to select winners and losers in the economy that if left free would most likely produced the opposite outcome. For many of us this means socialism. I agree that it is different from the socialism practiced in the Eastern Block known under the popular name as “International Socialism” and the western version known to the world as “National Socialism”. Due to the historical reasons the left is pretending that only “International Socialism” exists. In the National Socialism version the industry remained in the private hands but was strongly regulated by the state.

Was it socialism when the US used various tax breaks and incentives to encourage the fledgling oil industry in the early 1900s?

“The first 15 years, the report says, are critical to developing new technologies. It finds that oil and gas subsidies, including tax breaks and government spending, were about five times as much as aid to renewables during their first 15 years of development; nuclear received 10 times as much support.”

http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html

There should be no subsidies for established/mature technologies. Subsides for emerging technologies is a very wise use of taxpayer money.

If the new technology holds promises of making things better for taxpayers then spending some money to get them started is a wise investment in our future.

Are you actually so ignorant that you need to ask these questions?

If so, admit it and we’ll explain things to you.

What is Earth-shattering about the Tesla?

Tesla destroyed the myth that EVs are slow, limited range “golf carts with windows”.

Both the EV and the ICEV were born in the 19th Century. The electric car gained market share early on but was overtaken by the ICEV. Now we’ve got better battery technology and we’re understanding why we must get off fossil fuels so we are transitioning back to electricity.

Here ends lesson one….

Gasoline is more energy dense than current batteries.

Electric motors are far more efficient than internal combustion engines.

Energy density is only one part of the formula. Coal is a lot more energy dense than is wind. However the cost of new wind-electricity is considerably cheaper than new coal-electricity. (No subsidies.)

Huh?

You’ve got about a 10% energy loss in charging and 90% of the stored energy gets converted to kinetic.

How our electricity is generated now is not how our electricity will be generated in the future. We’re in the early days of a transition from fossil fuels to renewables.

Wind should hit 5% this year. Is 5% not a significant dent for a technology that only recently reached affordability?

The first US reactor came on the grid in 1958. Fifteen years later nuclear still produced less than 5% of US electricity.

It took nuclear 20 years to reach the level of hydro.

Out of 4,058,209 thousand kWh produced in 2013
167,665 thousand kWh were produced by wind.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/

That’s 4.13%. Wind went from 3.46% in 2012 to 4.13 in 2013. We’re on track to hit 5% this year or shortly after.

Don’t accuse me of lying and then post statistics for energy in 2011. That’s a double fail.

In 2013 hydro produced 6.6% of US electricity. Non-hydro renewables produced 6.24%. That makes the total renewable contributions 12.84%.

China’s done an excellent job meeting their wind targets. And they are ramping up solar like crazy. In 2013 they installed 10 GW of solar, more than the US has installed in total.

You’re making the same claims multiple times when you’ve been given information that proves them wrong.

That is the second time you have accused me of lying.

I take that seriously.

Now show me what I have posted that was false.

Correct. and ICE is still an easy winner for cost / performance.

ROTFL.
BS – Nissan Leaf MSRP 28950, Chevrolet Sonic 2014 MSRP 14170 – comparable cars.

BS – battery replacement will cost far more than all the oil changes taken together. Prius owners already found that out.
True – low center of gravity is key to handling. All those hundred of kilograms in batteries that are taken for a ride are making EV low CG cars.

Average American car is far larger and far more luxurious than the econobox class to which Leaf belongs. Leaf can be compared with Sonic, Fiesta, Accent, Rio, Versa. All those cars are far cheaper than the Leaf.

Prius is a hybrid and battery replacement is “only” $2700 for the customer. Full EV with Lithium batteries will cost around $10,000 to replace worn out battery. People do not realize this yet, because there is no EV on the market that is around 7-10 years old.

Modern spark plugs with platinum tips are replaceable after 100,000 miles. For most of the people it is 7 or more years. Set of 4 plugs is around $60.

What kind of a junk do you have that you need to replace drive shaft ?

Gas is not maintenance. It is energy. True that it cost more, but in return I have far better range and quick refueling when traveling far. What is the range of the Leaf in northern states during winter when cabin requires heat or during summer in Arizona when you need air condition at full blast ?

What is “best technology for the society” ? Define the meaning of it.I see more help in building infrastructure than trying to pick winners. Most of today technology was created by private business without much of the government help. There is some exception to this with technologies that wee militaristic in their beginning. In fact historically many of the industries originally build their power on the pure market and then later bought politicians and perks using their already existing power.

“The “best technology for the society” is tech that improves well-being and happiness and minimizes harm and suffering for the greatest amount of people”. Yeah, right. Well being and happiness to the greatest amount of people. That is exactly what market does the best. Expensive, artificially subsidized technology means that government will move money from other needs like homelessness, hunger, healthcare to finance it. Communism is the full implementation of your philosophy. The amount of devastation it brought to society is a perfect example of why you are wrong. Infrastructure such as roads were never economical. That is why they were always build by the state since Roman times. Car industry or energy industry do not have this problem.

No. Just an example how government subsidizing anything is communist

I actually agree with you. I would support green energy subsidies within a reason. But when I’m talking subsidies I would rather see green power generation research subsidies, advanced battery studies, fusion research, fuel cell research, building hydrogen infrastructure, things that are truly scientific and promising. I differ from most of you guys, that I do not value Tesla. Tesla for me is nothing special. It is well known technology that is not generating any new science. Expensive toy for millioners. I actually think that Chevy Volt or fuel cell Honda are far more interesting constructions than Tesla is and where I fully disagree is in “heavily taxing gasoline to create competitive edge”. Taxing gasoline will create “competitive edge” but at very high price to the society by making almost everything more expensive and therefore impacting economy and well being of the society.

Tesla is completely wrong choice. If anything then Leaf is much closer to the goal by providing much lower cost. Tesla is a smoke and mirror for the rich.

None of this is affordable or as convenient comparing to gasoline cars. That is why they sell so poorly.

Electric cars do not reduce pollution. Majority of electrical energy in developed countries is a mixture of fossil fuels and nuclear fission. Modern cars pollute very little.

It is debatable if climate change is a cost to us.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-probable-net-benefits-of-climate-change-till-2080.aspx

Tesla sales volume is around 25,000 vehicles/year. Ford sells around 750,000 of the F150 model alone.
It is not Matt Ridley opinion but analysis of many economists. As Matt says, if you believe in global warming scientific consensus, then why don’t you believe in economists consensus ?

Hyundai is relatively new in US. Demand for Hyundai cars many times greater. 35,000 cars a year is ridiculously low.
Why do you deny global warming ?

So why you assumed that I do ? I said that economical impact of climate change is debatable.

I don’t know what Matt believes. He did not posted there about his beliefs but what number of economists are saying in their books.

Ford sold 230 Model Ts the first year, 12,176 the second, and 19,291 the third.

Tesla delivered 2,650 Model S the first year. 22,477 the second, and we’re now in Tesla’s third year with 6,457 sales in the first quarter.

Sorry, Charlie. This is a new type vehicle. It takes a while to build market.

Tesla is doing great. They are selling cars as fast as they can build them With zero advertising.

Weak. You probably let that line of argument go.

And how well did “Rational Optimism” work for Northern Rock?

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

Matt Ridley claims climate change isn’t a cost…

Matt Ridley claims his bank will be profitable…

Matt Ridley’s bank collapsed…

See where I’m going with this?

All I’m saying is, if someone has a track record of utter failure…

Don’t count on them being right this time.