Category: Uncategorized

Norway Wrestles with Costly EV Subsidies (world leader at a crossroads)

Norway Wrestles with Costly EV Subsidies (world leader at a crossroads)

via Master Resource
http://ift.tt/1o3KEE1

“What happened in Denmark was similar to the experience in Georgia, where the state’s legislature voted to end its nation-high EV incentive program of $5,000 per vehicle, and to add a tax to EVs to account for road wear and tear. After the incentive was eliminated effective July 1, 2015, car dealers couldn’t give EVs away.”

“It appears from all the EV data we have examined worldwide that no country has crossed that gap from early movers/EV advocates to mass market appeal. It is all about battery costs, range anxiety, and subsidies. Until there are  significant technological breakthroughs, government subsidies cannot be abandoned.”

Norway is approaching its next election on September 11, 2017, when the 169 members of the legislative body, the Storting, will be chosen for new four-year terms. One of the issues at play in the election campaign is the cost of the country’s generous electric vehicle (EV) subsidy program, which has been a central tenet of the government’s efforts to shift its transportation sector from fossil fuels to electricity.

At the present time, Norway is the world leader in electric cars. About 35% of new cars sold in the country come with a plug. The national goal is to shift its car sales to 100% electric by 2025. Citizens are beginning to question the cost of this effort. After watching what happened in Denmark, the previous leader in promoting clean vehicles, the EV industry is worried about its demise if subsidies are reduced or eliminated.

Until the end of 2015, electric cars were exempt from Denmark’s high taxes on new cars, which could reach as much as 180% of the sales price. Beginning on January 1, 2016, new EVs were assessed a 20% tax on their sales price. Not surprisingly, in December 2015, EV sales soared. The first month of 2016 brought a different EV sales’ landscape as only 68 vehicles were sold compared to the 1,588 sold the prior month when the zero tax rate existed.

Through the first seven months of 2016, 1,332 EVs were sold in Denmark, down 80% from the number sold the prior year. Adding to the competitive automobile landscape was a reduction in taxes on conventional cars, making them less expensive when compared to EVs. On January 1, 2017, the sales tax rate for EVs doubled to 40%, and is scheduled to expire entirely by 2020. As a result, EV sales in the first quarter of 2017 dropped by 60% versus unit sales in the same period of 2016.

What happened in Denmark was similar to the experience in Georgia, where the state’s legislature voted to end its nation-high EV incentive program of $5,000 per vehicle, and to add a tax to EVs to account for road wear and tear. After the incentive was eliminated effective July 1, 2015, car dealers couldn’t give EVs away. Sales of Nissan Leaf EVs plunged from more than 1,000 a month to just 66 in August 2015. So what might happen in Norway if the EV subsidies are changed?

The extensive nature of the EV subsidies in Norway is surprising, but they are acknowledged to have been the driver behind EV growth in the country. The cost of these subsidies is becoming contentious as cited by quotes from politicians in Norway as reported by the Financial Times. The paper prepared an extensive article on the subsidy issue versus the dream of shifting Norway’s car fleet away from fossil fuels.

As Andreas Halse, the environmental spokesman in Oslo for the opposition Labour Party, said, “What we have proven in Norway is that if you give enough subsidies and impose enough restrictions on fossil fuel vehicles, people will buy electric.” He went on to say, “If we want to continue to be an example for the rest of the world, we need to show how this can be commercial. We need to get there because we can’t rely on public finances forever.”

The article interviewed a government employee who drives the 200 kilometers between Oslo and Lillehammer two to three times a week. He drives a Tesla Model S, but he pays no tolls on the highway, saving NKr810 ($96) every week. He also can charge his car at one of the 20 Tesla superchargers along the way for free. In addition, he gets free parking and his car’s purchase was tax free, essentially cutting its purchase price in half.

According to a recent study conducted by the Norwegian Electric Vehicle Association (NEVA), 72% of EV buyers are choosing them for economic reasons and just 26% for environmental reasons. Another NEVA survey of 12,000 EV owners showed that it was not just the big subsidies that influenced their purchase decisions, but also because they didn’t have to pay highway tolls.

The island of Finnoy, near Stavanger, has the highest concentration of EVs in the country because of the NKr150 ($17.75) one-way toll charge in the tunnel connecting it to the mainland. If you are commuting to work through the tunnel, this means a weekly savings of NKr1500 ($177.50).

The impact of the free tolls is significant. According to Mr. Halse, Oslo loses about NKr300 million to NKr350 million ($35.5-41.4 million) a year from the free tolls for EVs. Additionally, about NKr800 million ($94.7 million) of toll revenues goes to subsidizing public transportation per year. He questions whether it makes sense for the local government to spend half as much on EVs that represent 5% of daily commuting trips into Oslo as it does for public transport that accounts for almost 50% of commuter trips.

Relying on new electric-car registration data from the European Alternative Fuels Observatory (EAFO) for 2010 through the first quarter of 2017, we have made an estimate of what these subsidies are costing the Norwegian government. Over the time period studied, which encompasses the period of the government’s EV subsidy largess, a total of 91,688 new battery EVs and 38,920 new plug-in hybrid EVs were registered, representing about 5.2% of the currently estimated total number of passenger cars in the country.

A 2013 study by Reuters estimated that the purchase price (VAT) subsidy for an EV was equal to about $11,000 per vehicle, which they estimated was equivalent to about $1,400 per year per car. The study also cited about $1,400 per year per car in savings from the absence of toll expenses, a $5,000 per year benefit from free parking and about $400 per year in other savings. Based on these estimates, EV owners are benefitting by about $8,200 per year in savings from government subsidies. A Norwegian Green Car group challenged the assumptions in the Reuters study suggesting they grossly overstated the cost of the subsidies. That was not a surprising position, given the group’s focus. The group puts the annual EV subsidy at only $3,336 per vehicle.

Exhibit 6 Norway's Ev

Figure 1. Norway’s EV Sales at Risk from Subsidy Cuts

Using the EAFO new electric-car registration data, we have been able to estimate within a range, what the cost to the Norwegian economy has been from the EV subsidies. If we assume that the Reuters annual cost estimate is too high, it is equally as likely that the Green Car group’s estimate is too low. But using each of their annual cost estimates, we arrive at a range within which the likely subsidy cost lies. Over the period of 2010 through the first quarter of 2017, the high end of the cumulative subsidy cost is estimated at $1.07 billion, with a low estimate of $435.7 million.

In local currency, the cumulative subsidy cost estimate range is from the high end of NKr9.05 billion to the low end of NKr3.68 billion. Averaged over seven and a quarter years, the annual subsidy cost range is NKr1.25 billion to NKr508 million. That is a small amount, even if at the high end of the range, compared to an estimated NKr175 billion in government revenue.

It is clear that the scale and fairness of the EV subsidy scheme will be an issue in the upcoming Norwegian election campaign. Norway is fortunate that it gets 98% of its electricity from hydroelectric power. That is both a good thing, but also a problem for the government in reducing the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. In 2016, Norway emitted 53.4 million tons of greenhouse gases, up from 51.7 million tons in 1990. The country’s prime minister has stated that emissions will reach the 1990 level by 2020, but that is well above the target established eight years ago when Norway said it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30% below the 1990 level. As Christina Bu, secretary-general of Norway’s Electric Vehicle Association put it, “We can’t close a coal plant unlike many countries. So, transport is pretty much the answer.”

Exhibit 7 Low Oil Prices

Figure 2. Low Oil Prices Hurt Norway’s Revenues

That sentiment explains why EVs and their subsidies are being targeted in the upcoming election campaign. From Mr. Halse’s opposition viewpoint, (he does own a Leaf), “It’s a reality check – per trip a lot more is spent on electric cars than on public transport and I don’t think anybody intended that to be the case. We need to find a way for it to pay for itself, not just for us but because it’s important for the development of electric cars all over the world. You can’t expect Germany, France or Italy to hand out subsidies on this basis.”

The counter to Mr. Halse’s view is that of Ms. Bu who suggested, “I have been worried about pulling the plug too early on incentives. We need to have higher sales before we think about removing them [subsidies].” On the other hand, Ms. Bu pointed out that “Crossing the gap from early movers to early mass market is hardest. It’s too early to remove the incentives.”

Conclusion

It appears from all the EV data we have examined worldwide that no country has crossed that gap from early movers/EV advocates to mass market appeal. It is all about battery costs, range anxiety, and subsidies. Until there are  significant technological breakthroughs, government subsidies cannot be abandoned.

Norwegians may find out whether subsidies can be reduced or eliminated without killing EV sales, but the country continues to face an emissions reduction challenge necessitating more EVs. Norway will be pressed by the environmentalists desirous of seeing that the Paris Accord has a bite to its bark.

The post Norway Wrestles with Costly EV Subsidies (world leader at a crossroads) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource http://ift.tt/1o3KEE1

June 27, 2017 at 01:03AM

In SA recycling business goes broke due to electricity cost — thank renewables for making recycling impossible

In SA recycling business goes broke due to electricity cost — thank renewables for making recycling impossible

via JoNova
http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

A business processing 15% of Australia’s low grade plastics survived for 37 years with coal fired power in SA, and for one year without:

South Australia’s sky-high electricity prices have forced an Adelaide plastics recycling business to shut its doors, costing 35 workers their jobs, its managing director says. Plastics Granulating Services (PGS), based in Kilburn in Adelaide’s inner-north, said it had seen its monthly power bills increase from $80,000 to $180,000 over the past 18 months.

Managing director Stephen Scherer said the high cost of power had crippled his business of 38 years and plans for expansion, and had led to his company being placed in liquidation. “I hate to think of how many hours I’ve wasted on the AEMO website with tools to monitor spot pricing, to assess the implications of power, the trends of power and the future costs of power.

The SA Government is still in denial:

SA Environment Minister Ian Hunter said it was disappointing the facility was shutting down, but he said the pain of high electricity prices was being felt across the country.  Mr Hunter said help was available through the State Government’s energy efficiency programs.

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

via JoNova http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

June 27, 2017 at 12:37AM

Finally, see “Climate Hustle” in Australia — Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney.

Finally, see “Climate Hustle” in Australia — Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney.

via JoNova
http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

Don’t miss this if you can get there :- )  (And don’t forget to sign that Petition to get Australia out of the Paris Agreement too).

U.S.-based CFACT, along with its Australian partners, is hosting a showing of its new groundbreaking documentary, Climate Hustle, and you’re invited! Following each event, join film director CFACT Executive Director, Craig Rucker and film host and publisher of ClimateDepot.com Marc Morano, for a question and answer session. Get the behind the scenes scoop on both the film and the US’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.

We are pleased to be working with the following organizations: Australian Institute for Progress   | Galileo Movement  | Australian Environment Foundation  | Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance

July 12- Melbourne, Australia Village Roadshow Theatrette- State Library of Victoria Doors open at 5:30 PM, film to start at 6:00 PM Reception and Q/A session to follow Get Melbourne TICKETS here

July 15- Brisbane, Australia Sponsored by the Australian Institute for Progress New Farm Cinema Doors open at 4:30 PM Get Brisbane TICKETS here

July 18- Sydney, Australia Club Five Dock Doors open at 7:00 PM Get Sydney […]

Rating: 10.0/10 (3 votes cast)

via JoNova http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

June 26, 2017 at 11:26PM

NYT coins ridiculous meme: ‘Earth-scorching CO2’

NYT coins ridiculous meme: ‘Earth-scorching CO2’

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Guest Commentary by Kip Hansen

 

NYT_earth_scorching

The New York Times has set a new standard of scientific misrepresentation in this front page title to the latest climate change consensus salvo from Justin Gillis.   On the front page of the online edition of the NY Times for 26 June 2017, the title is given:  “Sharp Rise in Levels of Earth-Scorching Carbon Dioxide”

The actual title of the article, once one clicks through to it,  is “Carbon in Atmosphere Is Rising, Even as Emissions Stabilize”.

Who knows who at the NY Times thinks that characterizing CO2 as “Earth-scorching” is a valid scientific description of one of the absolutely necessary-for-life trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.  It certainly is not a proper journalistic description.

My objection is that it is a serious violation of Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics  specifically:

Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.

What do you think the phrase “Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story” might mean in this context?

It is simply scientifically false to label CO2  as “Earth-scorching” in so many ways that it is difficult to begin to write about it.  Journalistically, even if it were anywhere near true, it would be an oversimplification.

Is Mr. Gillis blameless?  He doesn’t write the front-page headlines.  I wish I could say that but I can’t.  Gillis writes:  “The excess carbon dioxide scorching the planet rose at the highest rate on record in 2015 and 2016. A slightly slower but still unusual rate of increase has continued into 2017.” — this is Gillis’ misrepresentation.

Are CO2 concentrations particularly high? Looking at the NY Times graphic, we see that they are at mountainous heights:
NYTimes_graphLooking at NOAA’s graphic, not so mountainous:

NOAA

The NY Times art department (or whomever is making the graphics) has taken data from the NOAA graphic and stretched it vertically to increase the appearance of a large increase.

Re-scaling the NY Times graphic helps some:

NYTimes_graph_adjusted

Better this:

NOAA_CO2

I must say I can’t see that incredible dangerous increase in rate of rise in the second NOAA graphic — because it is in reality an increase in fractional parts per million.   Note that the current spike in the two bar graphs matches a spike from the last El Niño in 1998 and the recent 2015-2016 El Niño .

Is the planet scorching?

scorching_temps

No, it is not.  For the year so far, we are running about 0.4 °C or 0.72°F above the 1981-2010 thirty-year average, down considerably from the 2015-2016 El Niño peak.

How about the US?

US_scorching

Oddly flat from the 1920s thru the 1980s — [adjusted?] up to flat again in the new century, centering on 53.5 °F or 12 °C — is that “scorching”?   It is a bit chilly for me.  Note that Global Average Temperatures are in the same absolute temperature range…still not scorching.

But, but, but they say, what about those summertime high temperatures?

For the United States, reader Steve Case “compiled [the data] from NOAA Climate at a Glance data”…then saved a text file of all the states June through September Max temperatures Alabama to Wyoming.  Trends in high temps produce this map:

summertime_highs

So, maybe not scorching in the US either.

Actual observational stats on extreme weather are not on rising trends – at least droughts (US), hurricanes, tornadoes (US), flooding, etc.  Reference Pielke Jr.’s evidence presented to the Senate Committee.

Gillis at least asks the right question:

“If the amount of the gas that people are putting out has stopped rising, how can the amount that stays in the air be going up faster than ever? Does it mean the natural sponges that have been absorbing carbon dioxide are now changing?”

Good question, Mr. Gillis.

Let’s see if the readers here can answer it for you —

Here’s the question:

“If the amount of the gas [CO2] that people are putting out has stopped rising, how can the amount that stays in the air be going up faster than ever?”

Readers:  Your answers in comments please.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment Policy:

I am not a climate scientist — I am an essayist, a writer. I have some ideas, but not an answer.

I think that the question is apt and extremely important — it may be, or contain,  the key to the current climate dilemma.

I’ll be interested in reading the answers you share in comments, but probably won’t be responding much. [ I may moderate a bit if the discussion devolves into name-calling.]

# # # # #

 

 

 

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

June 26, 2017 at 09:00PM