Who adopts new technologies, and who doesn't, and why?

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

WetEV

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
5,147
Location
Near Seattle, WA
GRA said:
The people who can afford expensive new tech don't need the subsidies, so any money given to them could be far better used by those who do.

The point to subsiding new technologies is not that the users "need" the subsidies, but that the subsidies are given to modify behavior.

If behavior in the aggregate isn't modified, then the subsidies are wasted. "Need" isn't part of this. Modification of behavior happens at the margin, with the people setting on the fence.

Users that will take up new technologies are likely higher income, as there are risks in new technologies, and higher income people can afford to take more risks. Lower income people are less likely to take up new technology, as they can't afford the risks, not all of which are financial.

Users of a new technology are not all the same. Not all purchases of a new technology are the same for the same user. It is the aggregate impact that matters, not the individual cases.

Consider the LED bulb.

A prize of $10 million was paid to a billion dollar corporation to start production. The L-prize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_Prize

Notice the target of the subsidy wasn't the potential buyers. While there was likely a market, getting production started was a risk.

The first L-prize winning LED bulbs sold out rapidly at $50-$60 each. This was not lower income people trying to save on both electric power and bulb replacements. This was either status seekers, environmentally active happy to save the vast majority of energy used on lighting, or people with hard to change bulbs hoping the 100,000 hour projected life was accurate.

Changing a bulb that requires a ladder costs time (=money) and doing it once a month for the incandescent would get old. CFL bulbs are better, just more than once a year. The 100,000 hour LED is once every 11 years. Break even on just the bulb is probably around $40 for the LED bulb. Installation is the big difference. The energy savings is around $40 per year vs incandescent, and only $4 per year vs CFL.

Break even time vs CFL was years, but LED bulbs are better light than CFL. The better off will pay more for better light and less replacement hassle. The poor need rapid financial breakeven. When LED bulbs started to show up in dollar stores, the poor started to buy them.


The new technology bulbs evolved rapidly, increasing in efficiency, light output and reducing in cost to manufacture and thus selling price.

So suppose you don't want to subsidize billion dollar corporations, how would you speed the start of adoption of LED bulbs by selling them to the poor? Who would produce them and why?

(I've prebolded this for GRA.)
 
Do you mean "Adopts new technologies...?"

Anyway, my position falls between yours and Gra's here. It does make sense to place the risks of new tech more in the hands of the affluent than of the less financially well off. However, once the tech is proven to be low risk, I think that the social justice argument comes into play. A case in point would be the Gen I and Gen II Leaf: at this point, there is little risk in buying a Gen II Leaf (provided one understands things like Winter range issues), and we should be making it easy for anyone who drives a car out of necessity to do so. That isn't just social justice - it's environmentally necessary.
 
WetEV said:
A prize of $10 million was paid to a billion dollar corporation to start production. The L-prize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_Prize

Notice the target of the subsidy wasn't the potential buyers. While there was likely a market, getting production started was a risk.

The first L-prize winning LED bulbs sold out rapidly at $50-$60 each. This was not lower income people trying to save on both electric power and bulb replacements. This was either status seekers, environmentally active happy to save the vast majority of energy used on lighting, or people with hard to change bulbs hoping the 100,000 hour projected life was accurate.

I've got a pair of the original Philips bulbs (dark ridged base) in my office since they came out. Decent light quality and durable so far in the open fixtures I have them in. We've since sent a number of cheaper mass-market LEDs off to the recycler though they too are finally getting better. Not sure about the 100,000 hour life for these Philips bulbs; I'm skeptical but maybe I'll let you know in another 30 years or so. :lol:

As far as "priming the pump" to improve alternative energy technologies, I'm all for it. The world will continue to use the old tech and fossil fuels until the alternatives are unquestionably superior. Altruism has little or nothing to do with it. The trick though, is knowing when the pump is already primed.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Anyway, my position falls between yours and Gra's here. It does make sense to place the risks of new tech more in the hands of the affluent than of the less financially well off. However, once the tech is proven to be low risk, I think that the social justice argument comes into play. A case in point would be the Gen I and Gen II Leaf: at this point, there is little risk in buying a Gen II Leaf (provided one understands things like Winter range issues), and we should be making it easy for anyone who drives a car out of necessity to do so. That isn't just social justice - it's environmentally necessary.

Thanks for the typo correction, and I largely agree with you. The hard part is determining when the technology is proven enough. Not black and white, always a shade of grey.
 
And then we have conflicting messages....
Part of the reason we went with a PHEV for our next vehicle purchase was the idiotic "EV" fee my state charges for our 2 Leafs! It basically means we are paying, in our case the same gas tax someone would pay for driving 30,000 miles/year for a vehicle the size of our Leaf, we don't drive 10,000 miles between the two of our Leafs. "So far" PHEVs do not incur this unfair "EV" tax as I assume they are figuring a PHEV does burn gas and therefore would be paying some "gas tax".
So for purchasing our PHEV we should be getting a $7500 federal incentive for purchasing it, which did influence our decision on purchasing a PHEV vs a straight hybrid or just a good MPG vehicle but our state in the case of purchasing a strictly EV is disincentivizing purchasing an EV! Note I understand there are worse states than mine on disincentivizing EV purchases but anything that would disincentivize purchasing an EV is just plain idiotic IMO.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
The people who can afford expensive new tech don't need the subsidies, so any money given to them could be far better used by those who do.

The point to subsiding new technologies is not that the users "need" the subsidies, but that the subsidies are given to modify behavior.

If behavior in the aggregate isn't modified, then the subsidies are wasted. "Need" isn't part of this. Modification of behavior happens at the margin, with the people setting on the fence.

Users that will take up new technologies are likely higher income, as there are risks in new technologies, and higher income people can afford to take more risks. Lower income people are less likely to take up new technology, as they can't afford the risks, not all of which are financial.

Users of a new technology are not all the same. Not all purchases of a new technology are the same for the same user. It is the aggregate impact that matters, not the individual cases.


We have no disagreement in the above.



WetEV said:
Consider the LED bulb.

A prize of $10 million was paid to a billion dollar corporation to start production. The L-prize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_Prize

Notice the target of the subsidy wasn't the potential buyers. While there was likely a market, getting production started was a risk.


Uh huh, and I've said repeatedly that I have no problem with government subsidies for R&D, dem/val or early production help, e.g. I've never complained about the government loan to Tesla so they could buy the former NUMMI factory in Fremont.


WetEV said:
The first L-prize winning LED bulbs sold out rapidly at $50-$60 each. This was not lower income people trying to save on both electric power and bulb replacements. This was either status seekers, environmentally active happy to save the vast majority of energy used on lighting, or people with hard to change bulbs hoping the 100,000 hour projected life was accurate.


You're missing one group. Some of the same people who bought LEDs early had previously bought CFLs, i.e. people who were my off-grid customers. While many were environmentally motivated as well, the primary motivation was the cost of off-grid energy - as I always told my customers, first spend your money on energy efficient loads; only after you do that does it make sense to get your power from wind/solar/micro-hydro, as your total cost will be lower*. But that was with the economics of RE 30 years ago, and now that they're far cheaper, the equation has changed.


WetEV said:
Changing a bulb that requires a ladder costs time (=money) and doing it once a month for the incandescent would get old. CFL bulbs are better, just more than once a year. The 100,000 hour LED is once every 11 years. Break even on just the bulb is probably around $40 for the LED bulb. Installation is the big difference. The energy savings is around $40 per year vs incandescent, and only $4 per year vs CFL.

Break even time vs CFL was years, but LED bulbs are better light than CFL. The better off will pay more for better light and less replacement hassle. The poor need rapid financial breakeven. When LED bulbs started to show up in dollar stores, the poor started to buy them.

Uh huh. Of course, some of them had bought CFLs before that, thanks to government subsidies to do so, usually run through utilities. And many of them only switched to CFLs or LEDs after incandescents were banned.


WetEV said:
The new technology bulbs evolved rapidly, increasing in efficiency, light output and reducing in cost to manufacture and thus selling price.

So suppose you don't want to subsidize billion dollar corporations, how would you speed the start of adoption of LED bulbs by selling them to the poor? Who would produce them and why?

(I've prebolded this for GRA.)


On the contrary, I'm all for subsidizing multi-billion dollar corporations as well as promising start-ups in the areas I described above, early on. What I'm not generally in favor of is subsidizing consumers directly, certainly not for tech as expensive as a car is. CFLs and LEDs are the wrong example here. Comparing the adoption path of PCs, VCRs, CD players, DVRs, big-screen and digital TVs, and cell phones is far more on point. Government money helped some or all of these through basic R&D, and sometimes extended beyond that into the areas described. What it didn't do is provide subsidies direct to consumers, and we saw the natural adoption curve you describe above. First the well-off who could afford expensive toys, then the middle class as production increased and prices dropped, and eventually everyone who wanted the tech. That natural adoption curve was because government wasn't sticking their finger on the scale of individual consumers, so it was a clear case of consumers choosing the best product to meet _their_ needs and desires. That's not the case when we give direct-to-consumer subsidies. The strongest motivator for most people to switch from the familiar to the novel is economic, which is why we're now seeing the big increase in PEV demand, especially over the past couple of months, and despite the big increase in car prices over the past year.



*I sometimes used the example of a $1 (or less) 60W incandescent vs a $20 15W CFL providing the same light. The former required one $350-$400 solar panel charging a battery one hour for each hour of light; You could run the latter for four hours off the same panel or four such lights for one hour, or buy a much less expensive panel and a smaller, less expensive battery just to run that one light. More commonly I'd talk about why it made sense to spend $2,500 on a super-efficient Sun Frost refrigerator instead of $400 for a common refrigerator you could buy at any appliance store - the former needed four panels as above to run it [total cost $2,500 + (4 x $350=$1,400) = $3,900 + smaller, cheaper battery pack], the latter sixteen panels [$400 + (16 x $350=$5,600) = $6,000 + bigger, costlier battery pack].
 
I agree with WetEV's arguments, but there is more to the current subsidy that is mostly used by the more affluent classes: it is also the most efficient use of money. A $7.5k EV tax credit is enough to push the upper middle class into EVs, but it would require a tax credit of 2 - 3x that amount for the poorer classes.

I know it looks perverse, but the quickest way to scale EV and lower its price of entry is to get the social class most able to rapidly adopt new technology to buy in.
 
SageBrush said:
I agree with WetEV's arguments, but there is more to the current subsidy that is mostly used by the more affluent classes: it is also the most efficient use of money. A $7.5k EV tax credit is enough to push the upper middle class into EVs, but it would require a tax credit of 2 - 3x that amount for the poorer classes.

I know it looks perverse, but the quickest way to scale EV and lower its price of entry is to get the social class most able to rapidly adopt new technology to buy in.


Then we disagree. The people who were buying Teslas back in 2012 would have bought them regardless (undoubtedly they'd lose a few at the margin), and they're buying even more now despite the lack of the credit and much higher prices over the past year.

The problem is that by not seriously limiting both the income and the price to qualify for a tax credit, the manufacturers have zero incentive to offer less expensive cars. After all, the same credit applies to a luxury car with all the bells and whistles as it does for a more basic car, and since the total # of credits is capped and the manufacturers have higher profit margins on the higher priced cars, there's no benefit to them of trying to offer less expensive cars with similar basic capability. Instead we get gimmicks like Falcon Wing Doors.
 
GRA said:
Then we disagree. The people who were buying Teslas back in 2012 would have bought them regardless (undoubtedly they'd lose a few at the margin), and they're buying even more now despite the lack of the credit and much higher prices over the past year.

Your arguments have gross misrepresentation. In 2012 a Tesla cost $120k - $150k. People like me waited for a $40k Tesla after tax credit

They are more expensive now, but so are every other car and the cost of fuel so your conclusion is perverse.
 
GRA said:
Then we disagree. The people who were buying Teslas back in 2012 would have bought them regardless (undoubtedly they'd lose a few at the margin), and they're buying even more now despite the lack of the credit and much higher prices over the past year.

Tesla wouldn't have survived 2012 without the subsidies. As it was, Tesla was days at most from running out of cash and being forced to shutdown.

Tesla was spending consumer deposits in 2012 to pay workers and buy parts. If fewer people made deposits, Tesla would have been forced to liquidate. The marginal people mattered. The people like Sage. The marginal people that put up a deposit that would have been lost in a bankruptcy.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Users that will take up new technologies are likely higher income, as there are risks in new technologies, and higher income people can afford to take more risks. Lower income people are less likely to take up new technology, as they can't afford the risks, not all of which are financial.


What I'm not generally in favor of is subsidizing consumers directly, certainly not for tech as expensive as a car is.

Unless, of course, it is FCEVs. :lol:

GRA said:
What it didn't do is provide subsidies direct to consumers, and we saw the natural adoption curve you describe above. First the well-off who could afford expensive toys, then the middle class as production increased and prices dropped, and eventually everyone who wanted the tech. That natural adoption curve was because government wasn't sticking their finger on the scale of individual consumers, so it was a clear case of consumers choosing the best product to meet _their_ needs and desires. That's not the case when we give direct-to-consumer subsidies. The strongest motivator for most people to switch from the familiar to the novel is economic, which is why we're now seeing the big increase in PEV demand, especially over the past couple of months, and despite the big increase in car prices over the past year.

The attraction of BEVs at the high end wasn't completely or even mostly economic. For a subset of buyers of LEAFs, they could hope for economic break even. Or even the $40k bottom end Tesla. A $120k Tesla S? I don't think so.

The reason for subsidies, again, is to modify behavior at the margin. The subsidy for PEVs did that. Are subsidies necessary long term? Of course not.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
Then we disagree. The people who were buying Teslas back in 2012 would have bought them regardless (undoubtedly they'd lose a few at the margin), and they're buying even more now despite the lack of the credit and much higher prices over the past year.

Your arguments have gross misrepresentation. In 2012 a Tesla cost $120k - $150k. People like me waited for a $40k Tesla after tax credit

They are more expensive now, but so are every other car and the cost of fuel so your conclusion is perverse.


Remind me again of the reason Tesla decided not to produce the S40? Oh, wait:
Tesla Kills The Entry-Level, 40 kWh Model S Citing Poor Demand

https://techcrunch.com/2013/04/01/tesla-kills-the-entry-level-40-kwh-model-s-citing-poor-demand/


. . . Per a Tesla press release, since its launch, only 4% of buyers opted for the 40 kWh model with its paltry 160 mile range. Instead, buyers have spent the extra cash on the more capable and better performing models.

The entry-level Model S cost $52,400 after the US Government’s $7,500 tax credit. At that price the 40 kWh Model S provided Tesla with a relatively competitive price point, putting the Model S on par with a BMW 5 Series or Cadillac XTS. But Tesla’s sales numbers clearly show that buyers didn’t mind spending more cash to get more range and better motoring performance of the higher priced options. . . .


I certainly agree that 160 miles is inadequate for an all-around car, and 208 (S60) or 265 (S85) was far more useful. OTOH, it had far more range than any of the other BEVs available at the time.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Users that will take up new technologies are likely higher income, as there are risks in new technologies, and higher income people can afford to take more risks. Lower income people are less likely to take up new technology, as they can't afford the risks, not all of which are financial.


What I'm not generally in favor of is subsidizing consumers directly, certainly not for tech as expensive as a car is.

Unless, of course, it is FCEVs. :lol:


Nope, against them for ANY car, regardless of how it's powered. FCEVs were given a price cap exemption by CARB in the most recent re-jiggering of California's subsidies, so FCEV cars can still cost up to $60k (or maybe it's unlimited, CVRP's website is unclear) as opposed to the $45k for other ZEV cars (but not trucks, which are also allowed up to $60k). Terrible idea. Cars like the Mirai 2 should be treated just as Model S and similar, as luxury vehicles bought by the well-off. Of course, the Mirai 1 and 2 should have bene Lexus', and the Gen 1 shouldn't have been a weirdmobile.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
What it didn't do is provide subsidies direct to consumers, and we saw the natural adoption curve you describe above. First the well-off who could afford expensive toys, then the middle class as production increased and prices dropped, and eventually everyone who wanted the tech. That natural adoption curve was because government wasn't sticking their finger on the scale of individual consumers, so it was a clear case of consumers choosing the best product to meet _their_ needs and desires. That's not the case when we give direct-to-consumer subsidies. The strongest motivator for most people to switch from the familiar to the novel is economic, which is why we're now seeing the big increase in PEV demand, especially over the past couple of months, and despite the big increase in car prices over the past year.

The attraction of BEVs at the high end wasn't completely or even mostly economic. For a subset of buyers of LEAFs, they could hope for economic break even. Or even the $40k bottom end Tesla. A $120k Tesla S? I don't think so.

The reason for subsidies, again, is to modify behavior at the margin. The subsidy for PEVs did that. Are subsidies necessary long term? Of course not.


Get the price low enough, or make the benefits of switching high enough (perks), and subsidies are unnecessary.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
The attraction of BEVs at the high end wasn't completely or even mostly economic. For a subset of buyers of LEAFs, they could hope for economic break even. Or even the $40k bottom end Tesla. A $120k Tesla S? I don't think so.

The reason for subsidies, again, is to modify behavior at the margin. The subsidy for PEVs did that. Are subsidies necessary long term? Of course not.


Get the price low enough, or make the benefits of switching high enough (perks), and subsidies are unnecessary.

Yet does the egg come first, or the chicken?

No production history and no production volume leads to a high cost and thus price. Perks for cars that don't exist don't drive adoption. Charging networks need enough traffic to become profitable.

When to stop subsidies?

1) When it is clear that the technology will never reach critical mass. See Fuel Cells, Automotive.

2) When it is clear that technology has reached critical mass. BEVs are either there or almost there. Charging networks are going to be hitting cash flow positive soon, and profitability a few years later.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
The attraction of BEVs at the high end wasn't completely or even mostly economic. For a subset of buyers of LEAFs, they could hope for economic break even. Or even the $40k bottom end Tesla. A $120k Tesla S? I don't think so.

The reason for subsidies, again, is to modify behavior at the margin. The subsidy for PEVs did that. Are subsidies necessary long term? Of course not.


Get the price low enough, or make the benefits of switching high enough (perks), and subsidies are unnecessary.

Yet does the egg come first, or the chicken?

No production history and no production volume leads to a high cost and thus price. Perks for cars that don't exist don't drive adoption. Charging networks need enough traffic to become profitable.


Which is why I have no problem subsidizing manufacturers and infrastructure providers early on. NOT consumers.


WetEV said:
When to stop subsidies?

1) When it is clear that the technology will never reach critical mass. See Fuel Cells, Automotive.


Obviously, plenty of companies and governments disagree regarding fuel cells, especially for commercial use. H2 infrastructure/passenger FCEVs were just starting to move out of the initial phase when Covid brought things to a screeching halt. I'm starting to see numbers pick up in my Friday car count, including a Clarity and Mirai 2 today. But until more fueling infrastructure gets built here, there's little or no room to expand FCEV sales. California has allocated money to get fueling infrastructure deployment back on track. We also need more models available, particularly AWD CUVs and pickups.


WetEV said:
2) When it is clear that technology has reached critical mass. BEVs are either there or almost there. Charging networks are going to be hitting cash flow positive soon, and profitability a few years later.

We can hope. Mandates and perks are still necessary at the moment, with or without subsidies.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
No production history and no production volume leads to a high cost and thus price. Perks for cars that don't exist don't drive adoption. Charging networks need enough traffic to become profitable.


Which is why I have no problem subsidizing manufacturers and infrastructure providers early on. NOT consumers.

Every subsidy of a new product is equivalent to a subsidy for consumers.


GRA said:
Obviously, plenty of companies and governments disagree regarding fuel cells, especially for commercial use. H2 infrastructure/passenger FCEVs were just starting to move out of the initial phase when Covid brought things to a screeching halt. I'm starting to see numbers pick up in my Friday car count, including a Clarity and Mirai 2 today. But until more fueling infrastructure gets built here, there's little or no room to expand FCEV sales. California has allocated money to get fueling infrastructure deployment back on track. We also need more models available, particularly AWD CUVs and pickups.

Spacecraft, Aircraft and long haul trucking are possible. None of which are automotive FCEVs.

Fossil fuel companies are thrilled to support hydrogen, after all that is where most of the hydrogen will come for decades. Governments will follow.

Auto companies are jumping off the bandwagon. Hydrogen for automotive is a loser.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
2) When it is clear that technology has reached critical mass. BEVs are either there or almost there. Charging networks are going to be hitting cash flow positive soon, and profitability a few years later.

We can hope. Mandates and perks are still necessary at the moment, with or without subsidies.

I pay $225 per year higher taxes for an EV, and have no mandates or perks.

Other than the perk of the e-tron is awesome to drive, of course.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
No production history and no production volume leads to a high cost and thus price. Perks for cars that don't exist don't drive adoption. Charging networks need enough traffic to become profitable.


Which is why I have no problem subsidizing manufacturers and infrastructure providers early on. NOT consumers.

Every subsidy of a new product is equivalent to a subsidy for consumers.


Of course, but it doesn't go directly into their pockets so it's not obvious, and will have little or no influence on their decision making about that product.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
Obviously, plenty of companies and governments disagree regarding fuel cells, especially for commercial use. H2 infrastructure/passenger FCEVs were just starting to move out of the initial phase when Covid brought things to a screeching halt. I'm starting to see numbers pick up in my Friday car count, including a Clarity and Mirai 2 today. But until more fueling infrastructure gets built here, there's little or no room to expand FCEV sales. California has allocated money to get fueling infrastructure deployment back on track. We also need more models available, particularly AWD CUVs and pickups.

Spacecraft, Aircraft and long haul trucking are possible. None of which are automotive FCEVs.


Lots of other heavy commercial vehicle use. See the "AFV truck" topic today for an example, plus as I've previously pointed out, trains, aircraft, and ships. The ground vehicles are certainly 'automotive use' and some of them (Toyota's, for at least two) use 2 or more FCs that were designed for cars. That will likely be temporary, as the growing market for stacks for heavy commercial vehicles will justify designing stacks specifically for their use. We're already seeing some of those, e.g. by Daimler and Cummins.



WetEV said:
Fossil fuel companies are thrilled to support hydrogen, after all that is where most of the hydrogen will come for decades. Governments will follow.

Auto companies are jumping off the bandwagon. Hydrogen for automotive is a loser.


You've stated your opinion many times, but as Leftie points out, opinions aren't facts. We're still at such an early stage that much may change. Some companies are jumping off, and others are staying or jumping in, based on their own forecasts. No one knows.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
2) When it is clear that technology has reached critical mass. BEVs are either there or almost there. Charging networks are going to be hitting cash flow positive soon, and profitability a few years later.

We can hope. Mandates and perks are still necessary at the moment, with or without subsidies.

I pay $225 per year higher taxes for an EV, and have no mandates or perks.

Other than the perk of the e-tron is awesome to drive, of course.


What you mean is that you have no direct mandates on you (yet). That's not the same thing as saying there are no mandates, and that they don't affect you. For instance:
Washington state plans to ban most non-electric vehicles by 2030
The bill says that all vehicles of the model year 2030 or later that are sold, purchased, or registered in the state must be electric.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/washington-state-plans-ban-non-electric-vehicles-2030-rcna21683


Then there's Washington being a CARB state. And of course, the only reason there are any PEVs to drive in the U.S. is thanks to CARB's ZEV mandate dating back to the '90s.

BTW, wouldn't you say an 85% take rate is more than enough to count as critical mass? If so, why on earth is Norway still subsidizing PEVs, especially when they plan to ban new ICEs outright from 2025?
 
GRA said:
BTW, wouldn't you say an 85% take rate is more than enough to count as critical mass? If so, why on earth is Norway still subsidizing PEVs, especially when they plan to ban new ICEs outright from 2025?
What subsidy ?
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
BTW, wouldn't you say an 85% take rate is more than enough to count as critical mass? If so, why on earth is Norway still subsidizing PEVs, especially when they plan to ban new ICEs outright from 2025?
What subsidy ?

Norway EV drivers don't need to pay CO2 excise tax.
 
WetEV said:
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
BTW, wouldn't you say an 85% take rate is more than enough to count as critical mass? If so, why on earth is Norway still subsidizing PEVs, especially when they plan to ban new ICEs outright from 2025?
What subsidy ?

Norway EV drivers don't need to pay CO2 excise tax.

And for good reason. But that is not a subsidy, which is the point I was making to GRA
 
Back
Top