In Norway they revolutionised the car market. They were the very first electric car that people actually wanted to buy. If it hadn’t been for Tesla proving the market for electric cars, I don’t think any other brands would have bothered. So far in 2023 83% of all new cars are electric.
In 2022 every fourth car sold (including petrol/diesel) was a Tesla.
You forgot the very "unimportant" detail which was that electric cars in Norway were zero VAT and tax for electric cars until this year (normal VAT is 25%).
Well, gee, no wonder that people were buying them left and right when the tax discount was about 16-20k NOK per car on average!
And that is just buying the car - Norway subsidizes electric mobility in many other ways so even today registering a new electric is cheaper than a gasoline car, despite the gas powered vehicles normally costing about 50% less.
So, please, when waving this sort of argument about, don't "forget" to put it in context.
Norway is a special case because of government policies, not because Tesla did anything particularly great there. They were just the only ones on the market at the time so people essentially had to buy a Tesla if they wanted to benefit from the generous subsidies because there simply wasn't anything else available. Today the situation is different, though.
This does not, however, change the fact that it became one of the first mass markeds in the world for electric cars, where Tesla has kept the lead even when all the legacy auto companies are selling electric cars. The Model Y is the most sold var model in Norway in 2023, outselling the number two, VW ID4 by 3-4 times.
Model Y is the most sold car model in the world in 2023.
Of course it was leader in a market of one. The alternatives were Nissan Leaf and probably the first gen Renault Zoe. Nobody would buy those.
The original argument was not that they were "leader" but that somehow people were buying Teslas for their quality or being better than everything else.
This just brought the price of electric cars in line with petrol cars of the same size.
When Tesla introduced the Model S there were no other electric sedans on the market.
Tesla introduced the Model X in 2015, it’s now 2023 and you still have to wait almost 2 years more if you want Volvo’s competitor to the Model X. Even with all the amazing subsidies Volvo is still a decade late to the party!
yes - wouldn't it be lovely to see governments uninvolved in these sorts of market decisions?
If the government discounts cars by 25% - that's one thing. But let's not forget too that the greater part of the cost of running a car (the fuel) is mainly made up by tax on the fuel - it itself is an artificial price.
Nothing about transport is reflective of the underlying reality. Its simply a governmental chess board, and could be shifted at any time by new legislation, eg if a tax is introduced to add 50% tax on the electricity used for cars.
Regardless of the worthiness of this or that cause - its most interesting that none of this the free market in action. Its also licensing, government grants, taxes... in all honesty what is the difference between this and communism - where the government overtly controls the actions of the masses?
> yes - wouldn't it be lovely to see governments uninvolved in these sorts of market decisions?
I agree. It should start with stopping all fossil fuel subsidies, 7 trillions/year and growing. And ethanol subsides, subsidizing ethanol production on 40m acres, just in US.
And have fossil fuel companies pay for their own military to protect their 6 million assets and 16 million transportation flows[2]. It should be determined by the companies themselves (free market) if these are worth protection, instead of having Govts protect these worldwide. Solar, on the other hand, will not require there protections, it does not depend on the exploration, extraction, shipping, processing, burning, waste output of any fuel. Solar is distributed, on every roof and field, nearly impossible for anyone to invade and destroy.
> the greater part of the cost of running a car (the fuel) is mainly made up by tax on the fuel
That may be true in Europe, but not here in the US. In the US, the federal gasoline tax is currently about $.18 per gallon, and state taxes range from about $.09 to $.58 per gallon[1] (with the median around $0.27). The average price of gasoline in the US has been around $3.00 per gallon[2] ($0.79 per liter), so the total tax would range from about 9% to 25% of the cost, depending on the state.
The price of gas in most European countries is much higher, with Norway paying over twice the US average (US $7.87 / US gallon).[3]
Norway has been has been massively subsidising EVs for a decade.
While Tesla probably played a role in EV adoption, I think you are overstating it by a lot. If the main factor wasn't economic we would see these same stats in every other country where a Tesla can be bought.
>Norway has been has been massively subsidising EVs for a decade.
And every country has been massively subsidizing ICEs since their creation, both explicitly and implicitly (by failing to price in the enormous externalities, engaging in nasty geopolitics up to and including war for oil, tolerance for enormous human atrocities and authoritarian regimes, etc).
Economics certainly matters, but there still have to be vehicles people want to actually buy and can perform as they wish. For me BEVs haven't hit that yet even though I could afford one. Like, there's been a surprisingly slow rollout when it comes to trucks, I think the Cybertruck is the first one I'd consider a real useful (in theory) truck with a minimum of a 6.5' bed. Except build quality is apparently pants, there is all the Tesla spying, and they downgraded the max range option from 500 (paper, which they also apparently lied about) miles (which even on paper would be like 300-350 miles in winter which would be a good useful range), and other problems. Even if the US Government offered me 50% subsidies or something ludicrous for a BEV truck it wouldn't matter if there's literally nothing I want to buy. I think building cars that were actively good vs what came before mattered, as does the charging network. Even if Tesla has run into awful scaling problems and founder-syndrome as happens so often that doesn't IMO negate that.
Norway is one of the countries with the highest GDP per capita. I think this puts the norwegian consumer in a better position to by an EV even if it costs more than a comparable ICE vehicle. Not sure that is true all over the world.
This is not true, the Leaf was selling in the thousands before Tesla entered the Norwegian market in mid 2013. The Leaf was the best selling car of all new cars in October 2013.
I might also have bought one if I had been in the market for a car at that time. But not because I would have wanted it, but because I would have needed it :)
I think my comment above was indeed a bit snarky and is rightfully getting downvoted.
Only car. Was commuting to and from grad school, my folks place, and my apartment. I pushed it pretty far, and was able to access 240 charging in 2/3, and used 120 overnight. Admittedly did not have a kid, and my wife was able to walk everywhere during the weeks. It was a great car tho!
I feel like the subsidies given by the government did that. Free parking, free cash towards the car, no taxes, etc. Is what revolutionised the electric car market. And of course most new cars are electric. They are banning the sale of gas powered cars in a couple years in Norway. Maybe Tesla made a car prior wanted but the government made it easy for them to buy it.
Let me quickly ask you if Norwegians are seeing the same rates of Tesla mishaps as the rest of the world ( or atleast North America )?
If you happened to be unaware all of these Tesla-skeptics ( atleast this latest round of skeptics ) are being buoyed by this Reuters report about major problems Tesla owners have faced off late. One describing a new owner's experience with his spanking new Tesla : "The vehicle’s front-right suspension had collapsed, and parts of the car loudly scraped the road as it came to a stop."
Tesla blamed drivers for failures of parts it long knew were defective
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-musk-steering-suspension/
Don’t understand how that guy ended up paying for the failure as under UK Consumer Law that fault is presumed to be a manufacturing one on a car that new and Tesla should replace the card
BMW did bother. They started selling the i3 at the same time then Tesla. And I think it was even better sold then Tesla in the states for some time.
Tesla had more aggressive marketing that was hot air at the end of the day …
I don't think anyone who needs a car would trade their current family car for an i3. It's a nice extra car to use for commuting to the office or popping by the shop, but it can't exactly fit a family of four heading out for their summer holiday.
The i3 came out before the model 3. Before the model 3, Tesla only had the model S (and maybe X?), which is not meant for mass market like the 3 was. Until 2017, Tesla simply didn’t have a mass market vehicle.
> Were it not for Tesla, America wouldn’t be on a path towards electrified transport
That, too, is up for discussion, but not for now. I’ll leave it by saying that, without Tesla willing to sell cars at a loss for a long time, it might be a bit less further on that path, but I think California and/or the EU would have forced it by now to get on that path, by setting goals for cars sold within their jurisdictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_effect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect)
There also can be discussion about whether Tesla’s path is the right pat, but that definitely is for another time.
You think the GM and Ford gigafactories would have taken up the slack, ignoring the chance to milk existing ICE investments for another decade? The charging network would have spontaneously emerged and somehow been as good as what Tesla delivers?
> California and/or the EU would have forced it by now to get on that path
For hybrids, maybe. California is a major oil producer [1]. That lobby counterbalanced the environmental wing for decades. If there wasn’t a mass-market EV, Sacramento wouldn’t have had many options.
> that definitely is for another time
Lol, is this a thing now? We’re obviously discussing it at this time.
Without Tesla German incumbents would have lobbied EU just to mandate biofuels and there would be fever EV:s. Tesla did drag an industry kicking and screaming to EVs.
If not for Tesla, America (& the Western world in general) might not be on a path towards private inefficient electrified road transport, leaving much more room for investment in & upselling of vastly more sustainable non-road transport, as has been done in China.
Musk in particular has form here - consistently blocking & derailing all potential high-speed rail projects for the west coast in favour of white elephants (the material result being a maintained reliance on roads, and - by extension - his big cobalt-mine-dependent business).
> derailing all potential high-speed rail projects for the west coast
Musk ran California’s high-speed rail through the Central Valley?
I like public transport. But America isn’t built for it. Switching to trains would mean upending and dissolving tens of millions’ communities. There was no other path without EVs and trains galore; it was—and is—between EVs and ICE cars.
> Weren't communities dissolved to build the massive highway network US has?
Yes. It was traumatic and widely regarded as a mistake. Given the precedent, and our massively increased per-capita resources today versus in the post-War era, you'd be fighting an army of suburban Jane Jacobs to remake America à la China or Europe.
Seems a very honest interpretation of events to purport that Musk has had no influence over transport in California.
> America isn’t built for it.
That rhetoric is used the world over as an excuse to bolster against progressive innovation of all kinds. It's been debunked countless times. "Dissolving" communities to make way for rail is of course also nonsense.
China may be investing in rail but that doesn't seem to be incompatible with BEV adoption. As of 2022, 22% of all new car sales in China were electrics.[1] In the US it was only 6% that year[2], and looks to be about 8% for 2023.[3]
China also would have invested heavily in EVs regardless of Tesla. They simply don’t have much oil, and importing it is a huge national security problem for them. Couple that with their huge pollution problem and tons of cars even with lots of mass transit options, EVs were inevitable and already coming along before the model 3 came out.
I doubt that. The innovation in lithium ion batteries was fueled by the demand for consumer electronics, laptops in particular. It’s the batteries that made electric cars possible.
Tesla’s did kick off the trend of big screens in cars. I prefer buttons to touch screen interactions while driving, but many people want an iPad and Tesla made that happen.
> innovation in lithium ion batteries was fueled by the demand for consumer electronics, laptops in particular
The battery chemistry and production methods didn’t change fundamentally from Goodenough’s formulation. What did was scale manufacturing. China took the lead, with A123’s tech. But Tesla showed there was demand for EVs in the rich world, and that production could be tamed such that money could be made from it. (EV batteries share little to no production footprint with cells for consumer electronics. They drain differently.)
Pretty much every EV sold in America today was financed by investors looking for the next Tesla, or announced by manufacturers in response to Tesla.
Giving where credit's due, some of the high-discharge long-endurance Li-Ion research is done by Tesla. Other electronic devices generally converge towards slow-discharge, semi-fast charge, low self-discharge batteries.
EVs are unique in their battery requirements. They demand high-discharge, high-endurance, very fast charge batteries, and Tesla did some research on that front. What's important that they were not the sole researchers in that area.
On the other hand, they lack the know-how required to make cars efficiently and assemble them with state of the art methods (minimal/standardized fasteners, fatigue management, fast manufacturing with consistent quality and finishing, etc.).
Tesla's manufacturing has come a long way in the past few years. In 2018, Sandy Munro famously tore down the new Model 3 with a lot of criticism for things like their excess of parts, fasteners, and welds. They made a lot of changes, including some he suggested, and now Munro tends to rave about how well they're engineered for ease of manufacture. This is a guy who gets paid by Big 3 auto companies to help improve their manufacturing.
Even if we take for granted that Tesla is a net positive, Tesla isn't SV. For every Tesla there is a Facebook that is a net negative. Just ask Myanmar.
> Tesla isn't SV. For every Tesla there is a Facebook
Totally agree. But looking at specifics, and dissecting why they work or do not, helps suss out patterns.
For example, Tesla’s benefits are amplified—perhaps even characterised—by their ecosystem effect. That doesn’t happen when you have a quasi-monopoly like Facebook. On the other hand, their downsides are largely a function of lying. That’s common across Silicon Valley, and may similarly have a systematic treatment. (Or, at least, if you’re replicating the model, consider removing that in your iteration.)
TV helped changing quite a few regimes throughout history, and not always for the better. However, I do not think anybody would dispute the fact that TV was, overall, a net positive for mankind.
Same with Silicon Valley. There are certain negative aspects to it but overall we are discussing this on the amazing supercomputer it created, with software it wrote, on platforms it maintains [1]. I seriously doubt the majority of people would want to go back to a world without SV's innovations.
[1] of course it wasn't SV alone, there were many contributions from all around the world, it's just that SV spearheaded the changes and lead us on this path.
I can't recall him ever writing black on white that TV was a net negative for humanity, but the thesis of Neil Postmans Amusing Ourselves to Death seems to heavily imply it. It is - as far as I can tell - a pretty influencial thesis on these matters.
I am sure some aristocrats somewhere are pissed off that we’re not all listening to Bach and reading Kant for our entertainment, but that does not make TV a net negative. It just shows once again that we (as a society) should never give power to various “experts” over our individual choices.
Do you mean the military dictatorship? I’m not sure if they are reliable sources. But yes, Myanmar blames lots of their ethnic violence problems on Facebook, it couldn’t be bad governance at all right?
As with most things it's probably a combination of factors, one of which is Facebook essentially monopolising internet access in the country while stoking the fire.
YouTube would also be popular, in most of SEA the internet means mostly Facebook and YouTube, to the chagrin of Chinese internet services who can’t even compete outside of China in their own backyard (well, TikTok is hugely popular there, as it is here, Myanmar is also blaming TikTok and YouTube for ethnic violence, so it just isn’t Facebook). But I’m not sure how Facebooks‘s popularity equals a monopoly, they aren't engaging in anti competitive behavior, the infrastructure is free for use by competitors. The only thing Facebook puts in beyond other markets is localization and marketing.
Because they offered free service only to Facebook in developing countries (including Myanmar) using their FreeBASIC program[1], thereby establishing a defacto monopoly and building a anti-competetive moat against any competitors.
That would only be true if other companies couldn’t do that as well, like google did. And also, this hadn’t impeded TikTok’s ability to take market share away from Google when it became popular.
I look SV's effect on global scale, because I neither live in the US, nor located on the continent itself. Also, the debate is about SV's global impact at full spectrum, not only about Tesla.
So, yes, it's up for debate.
Lastly this doesn't change the fact that Tesla fared the worst in the automaking competition this year w.r.t. everyone else, and they're faking till they're making it. More automakers are always good, but more pretending is always bad (cough VW, Cummins, cough).
I never disagreed. I’m saying the case at hand, EVs, provide a potent balance of the tradeoffs Silicon Valley’s methods involve.
On one hand, you get the capacity for transformational change. Change that can be for the general good. On the other hand, we have costs ranging from a culture of normalised lying to ideological nothingburgers gaining currency due to their proximity to, well, currency.
Put another way, remove Silicon Valley from the equation and yes, we have safer cars. But we also have little reason to be optimistic about ever hitting carbon zero in this country. The latter is more globally relevant than the former.
> > America wouldn’t be on a path towards electrified transport
And that is good news because? So that 100 year from now the avg temperature would be 0.005C less because we'd have substitued the black pollutant produced by Arabs with Star and Stipes Lithium (or lithium which comes from countries that are in the sphere of influence of the US)
This effort is a spit in the face of people who are alive and have big problems right now, that's the reason why they are engaging in rolling coal as a form of protest against this nonsense.
That's up for a through debate, but not today. Let's leave it at I don't agree that part 100%.