Nearly All New Cars Sold in Norway Were Electric in 2024 (msn.com) 135
Electric vehicles dominated Norway's new car sales in 2024, capturing 88.9% market share versus 82.4% in 2023, the Norwegian Road Federation said. Tesla led sales, followed by Volkswagen and Toyota, as the Nordic nation approaches its 2025 goal of selling only zero-emission vehicles.
Not suprising for rich country with EV incentives (Score:5, Informative)
Not only it is a relatively rich country but also there were a lot of EV incentives. Many of them are likely still active there now:
progresive tax on cars based on weight and emissions
no VAT for EVs
at least 50% exception on road taxes and tolls for EVs
lower parking fees and access to bus lines for EVs
Re: (Score:3)
Not just incentives but actual joined up thinking - sufficient charging infrastructure, public transport, foot & cycle paths and so forth. If Norway can make it happen years before anyone else then it's viable in other countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Also massive amounts of oil money to spend on EV infrastructure. Oh the irony.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing ironic. Oil is a fungible asset. Digging it out of the ground isn't the major source of emissions. People setting it on fire are. The world will burn oil at the same rate whether it comes from Norway or not so criticising their EV infrastructure due to being funded by oil is stupid.
Re:Not suprising for rich country with EV incentiv (Score:4, Insightful)
Shame those other countries with oil wealth didn't spend it on giving their economy a huge boost (Norway is the place to do EV R&D now) and cleaning up their environment.
I'm sure the shareholders were deserving of it, and it wasn't invested in anti-science propaganda. Oh the irony.
Re: (Score:2)
progressive tax on cars based on weight and emissions
Interesting. I wonder how that works out. From what I understand, and EV weighs more than an equivalent ICE vehicle. Batteries are heavier than engine blocks, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
B.S.
Norway has 17% immigrants while USA has only 14%, Switzerland has 32%.
If anything, immigrants help national wealth.
What's holding up USA is the rich/poor income gap, growing at an alarming rate.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Just the kind of post I'd expect from a coward.
Re: Not suprising for rich country with EV incenti (Score:2)
(I think he meant bus only driving lanes)
that may be appropriate (Score:4, Informative)
Norway is smaller than California with about 8% of California's population, and their power grid is in much better shape. All electric vehicles could actually work in that country. So more power to them. Perhaps they will discover things about going all-electric that will benefit the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
All-electric works in each country.
Re: (Score:2)
All-electric works in each country.
For certain values of "work". For instance, I drag a trailer periodically from Oregon to California. It's a 550 mile trip. I can do it in one (rather long) day in a gas powered F150. Calculations based on the capacity and charge time of the F150 Lightning is that it'd be almost three days to take the same trip, much of which would be spent charging the vehicle.
Mind you, that's at the current level of technology, which is improving all the time. So perhaps the more correct thing to say would be all-elec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you didn't calculate that number.
Re:that may be appropriate (Score:4, Informative)
He didn't, but I'll take a shot at it.
According to the most recent [bts.gov] (April 2024) data by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there were 1,346,002,877 trips taken by Americans in that month. Of that, 1,540,204 were longer than 500 miles. That means 0.114% were longer than 500 miles, which describes your trip. So, literally 99.886% of all trips were shorter than your example.
In 2021 [evstatistics.com], 99.2% of all trips were less than 100 miles long, with 99.9% less than 500 miles. Hell, 93.4% were less than 25 miles.
So take the AC comment of you being 0.0002% as it is meant -- a hyperbolic statement meant to convey the obvious fact that you are a statistical outlier to such an extent your needs for vehicle range are not relevant to any discussion other than YOUR needs. They can't be reliably used as an example of what the industry needs to get to for EV adoption to dramatically increase.
There is more of a mental shift needed that is very hard to make without experiencing it. People are conditioned to go to a gas station to fuel up and get in and out as fast as possible. Why not? There's no other reason to be there. But that isn't the EV model or experience.
Ignoring those that can charge at home, I charged my EV up tonight from 17% to 80% in 21 minutes in 35 degree (F) weather. Horrible, right? Who in their right mind would want to wait that long? I certainly don't. Except I didn't, really. The charger was at a Walmart and I needed to do some grocery shopping. I plugged in and did that shopping. It took me 21 minutes to get in, get my stuff, get out, load the groceries in my trunk, unplug and leave.
With a gas car, fueling up is at a dedicated fueling station. That's why you're there. With an EV, fueling up is NOT why you are there, it is an extra -- if you change your mindset. I was there because I had a grocery list. If I finished sooner, I would have left sooner with a slightly lower charge. (Note: I wasn't on the faster charger, either. Normally I can go 20-90% in 15 minutes or less.)
The way EV infrastructure is evolving, charging stations are being placed where people would otherwise go. They're a bonus to what you're doing already -- movie theater, shopping center, etc. Yes, there are big gas-station-like charging centers off of highways for those who need to do it that way. But even then...your claim of an F-150 Lightning turning your one, long 550 towing trip into a 3-day trip sounds like a math error. The long range Lightning gets 320 miles to a charge -- cut than in half for a big tow. Say 160. That would be 3.5 charge cycles, and on a fast DC charger those would be in the neighborhood of 30-minutes each, 10-100%. How does adding 1.5-2.0 total hours to your trip for charging turn it into 3 days?
Re: that may be appropriate (Score:2)
So what you are saying is about the same size in square miles, and about 10% of the population. That makes then much less densely populated. And they still figured out how to make 100% electric work. (Well eventually, I imagine there are still ICE on the road.)
If they made it work, surely we can too!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's clear yet whether they've made all-electric work (or at least work well) but they are trying, and they're higher on the curve than we are. I'm just saying, there are things we can learn from their experiences, be it good or bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is that, but there are real technical difficulties that will need to be overcome. California for instance, has created an EV mandate for which their grid doesn't currently have the capacity. There are definitely solutions for that, but it requires that the state somehow cut through the bureaucracy and inevitable corruption and get it done. It'll be interesting to watch.
Re: (Score:3)
Norway is smaller than California with about 8% of California's population
So what you're saying is Norway has 8% of the resources available to dedicate to the problem given that they have such a small population and thus lack the large economy of California to make things happen...
Whenever someone compares countries you need to understand the terms you're comparing. A bigger population in a smaller space is objectively a better scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right regarding number of charging stations, which is more a function of the physical size of the country than the population. Norway is 1100 miles along its long dimension. Presuming a major highway down the center as California has, (I actually don't know, but for the sake of argument.) And maybe 250 mile range limit on the average electric car, let's presume 150 miles to leave room for error, that's, wow, that's only about eight charging stations. I'm surprised. That's actually doable. Assum
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any specific reasons why California can't do the same?
Population is a red herring. If it was an issue then California wouldn't be able to keep the lights on either. The grid needs upgrades, but I guess those are impossible.
At least the climate in California is much better than Norway.
So? (Score:2)
Population of Norway: 5.5 million.
Two other examples (Score:3)
Neither country is floating on oil yet they move forward.
I'm presently in Denmark ( a country know for high taxation) and mainly charge when the wind is blowing which is making power cheap.
The result is driving of an EV is really saving me serious money.
Re: (Score:3)
Same here, and I live in Sweden (we have the LEAST of the EV's of our nordic countries), and people kinda oppose EV's here.
But I've given up on explaining to my coworkers how i literally laugh all the way to the bank after having bought my cheap second-hand EV 2 years ago, even with the smallest battery available. I save 3500 euro / usd - every year, and the car paid for itself within 5 years. It's hilarious.
The people have such idiotic type of arguments:
- Your car will blow up (yes, when an EV blows up its
Miles (Score:2)
I've come to the conclusion that if you could reasonably replace your car with a comfortable golf cart and are wealthy, you can probably drive an EV.
Norwegians are quite wealthy.
There are rather huge discount incentives for owning an EV in Norway.
Norwegians drive about half the miles annually of an American.
Seems reasonable they'd drive evs.
Re:regret coming soon (Score:5, Insightful)
What sort of conspiracy bullshit is this? Fuck off.
How to improve discussion quality? (Score:3)
Good question, but your rude closing evidently didn't motivate any answer. And you propagated the vacuous Subject, too.
At first I was going to complain about the censor mods targeting elcor, but on reflection I think the down-mods were justified, even without trying to look up the meanings of WEF or N. The identity didn't have any significant answer to any question, rude or otherwise.
WEF has no power [Re:regret coming soon] (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Some Dutch guy once wrote: "In a room full of l
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but they become presidents and prime ministers and policy writers who promote ‘the agenda’.
These are all WEF members. Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau, Narendra Modi, Jacinda Ardern, Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Henry Kissinger, Zhu Rongji, Christine Lagarde, Juan Manuel Santos, Boris Johnson, Mario Draghi, Aung San Suu Kyi.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry about opposition, there is quite a bit but so far the opposition is mainly known to be either thinking of their own pocket (Musk, Trump) or they are plain uninformed. (A large section of recent Republicans).
Re: (Score:2)
'eloquent thinkers', more like would love reimplement Marxist ideology where they belong to the privileged political class, and you are a subsistence servant in a 15-minute city eating crickets digitally tracked for your carbon footprint and social credit points.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:regret coming soon (Score:5, Insightful)
You should be asking your doctor which medication is right for you
Re:regret coming soon (Score:5, Informative)
Given that we've been moving to electric vehicles for over a decade, most of us have quite some experience with them already. I bought my first electric car in 2018, and got a second one for my wife last year.
They just work.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to limit yourself to just working where they work then there's no reason about 1/3rd of the cars in the USA couldn't be electric right now given the average distance people drive and the rates of private home ownership (reads: having the ability to charge the car in your own garage).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think distances are short in Norway?
Many EV owners in apartments. Works. (Score:3)
>> They are worthless to someone living in an apartment in the US as there is no place to charge.
Not true.
There are many EV owners in apartments, and they manage to get by.
Needs a bit of change, it is still a real problem tho.
Many countries now have laws banning condo owners to forbid their tenants to install power outlets or charge stations to the car parking, that would be a good start.
Charging at place of work is also an excellent model, providing outlets on the car park can make a business more at
Re: (Score:2)
Re: regret coming soon (Score:2)
What the fuck are tou talking about man? This is SLASHDOT. Do you know who we are? We know better than anyone else!
Here is the proof, I ibviously know more than you! QED!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Zero emissions? (Score:5, Informative)
That first linked article is incoherent and terribly cited. As a general point it is widely acknowledged that EVs generate more emissions during manufacture but emit radically less during operation than conventional ICE cars. This depends on how electricity is generated for your area, but the more renewables, the less the emissions. There are online tools such as this [fueleconomy.gov] and this [electricve...cil.com.au] where you can find where this cross over is, depending on the local power generation blend, but typically if you drive 20,000 miles then EVs reduce emissions vs ICE and over 100,000 miles it is something like 1/5th the emissions in total.
As for hydro generation or other renewables I'm sure you could point to bad things that happen to every form of energy generation. That is an incredibly lame form of argumentation without considering the comparative harm of one form to another and choosing to reduce it wherever possible.
Re: (Score:2)
That first linked article is incoherent and terribly cited. As a general point it is widely acknowledged that EVs generate more emissions during manufacture but emit radically less during operation than conventional ICE cars.
Any sources for this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I provided 2 links that both provide information about their sources and assumptions that you may follow.
Re: (Score:2)
This depends on how electricity is generated for your area, but the more renewables, the less the emissions.
To clarify, electric power is not some big pool of energy. Its produced as a set of layers. So the emissions depend on the source of power for the layer being added at the time the vehicle is charged. For instance, if you are charging at night that layer is obviously not solar. But if the wind is blowing it could be 100% wind, even if the wind is only producing a small fraction of the total power the grid is using at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it's a blending of various energy sources - coal, oil, gas, nuclear, wind, hydro, wave, solar. In many countries renewables make up the majority of energy generation so the emission calculation comes down. I expect charging overnight would mostly rely on wind as a renewable but lots of countries are building out energy storage too so not necessarily. Renewables are also increasing by % so even over the lifetime of an EV, let's say 10 years, the emissions for using it drop whereas ICE stays constant.
Re: Zero emissions? (Score:2)
Re:Zero emissions? (Score:4, Informative)
As a general point it is widely acknowledged that EVs generate more emissions during manufacture
No it is not.
And common sense tells you: it is opposite around.
Well, there's your common sense, and then there's data. Some of which is contained in the first article buck-yar links. DrXym has valid objections to that article, but one table has a clear citation from a study that shows EVs do have higher emissions during manufacture than other vehicles.
What in an EV would cause lots of CO2 emissions, during production? Nothing of course.
There's your faulty common sense again. EVs, just like ICE vehicles, are made out of materials that cannot be manufactured or supplied without making a carbon footprint. Aluminum, for example: it is not rare, but it requires a great deal of energy to refine. Recycle aluminum every chance you can, to reduce that environmental burden.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's your common sense, and then there's data. Some of which is contained in the first article buck-yar links. DrXym has valid objections to that article, but one table has a clear citation from a study that shows EVs do have higher emissions during manufacture than other vehicles.
Except the problem is the twisting of the data and the word "higher". Studies have found that relative to their operation, EVs emit more carbon in manufacturing than ICEs. "EV and ICE emissions found that 46% of EV carbon emissions come from the production process while for an ICE vehicle, they ‘only’ account for 26%." That is common sense as EVs do not produce much emissions while operating. What is obscured or neglected is that overall, total (manufacturing and operating) carbon footprint is m
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we disagree. I like EVs and apparently so do you, despite the currently larger up-front emission burden.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I own EVs and I don't dispute there is a higher cost to manufacture. Batteries contain rare earth metals and digging them up and turning them into batteries as well as making motors takes energy, far more so than casting an engine. The net positive of EVs is in their operational lifetime where in the countries switching to renewables (i.e. most Western countries), the emissions used to produce electricity is far less than those from drilling, refining & burning fossil fuels.
I may add that as batter
Re: (Score:3)
"Zero-emission vehicle" means "no carbon dioxide is emitted from the vehicle as a function of its propulsion". That's all. It has nothing to do with the cradle-to-grave ecological sustainability. It has nothing to do with the ecological sustainability of acquiring its fuel.
That's all.
Re: (Score:2)
You could google your questions.
Otherwise: just facepalm about your stupidity.
For a start: Norway is not Canada. Not even same continent!
Re: (Score:2)
Did they invent a magic wand? How'd they solve the issue that EV's create more carbon and pollution than a similar EV, so much that it takes 8 years to break even?
By paying attention to actual data showing that EVs, in fact, do not create more carbon and pollution. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehic... [epa.gov]
Also, no, hydroelectric power produces FAR less carbon dioxide than fossil fuel power.
Interesting article about methylmercury, but very biased. If you're worried about methylmercutry, the HUGE effect on conversion of mercury contamination to mercury is due to global warming. By the way, are you aware that Quebec is not in Norway?
Re: (Score:2)
Quebec is not in Norway
Big if true!
Re: (Score:2)
Lets be clear. It is well-understood that EV's have a higher carbon imprint from manufacturing largely because of the carbon footprint from producing their batteries.. If you are disputing that, then you need a source that disputes it, not one that looks at lifetime emission models.
EV's have a lower emission footprint over their expected lifetime than a similar new ICE vehicle because the fuel they use has far less emissions. There are claims that is true even if all the electricity used to charge them is
Re:Zero emissions? (Score:4, Informative)
ICE engines are pretty close to 20% efficiency. They also have LOTS of coal and natural gas and even still they use hydro for almost all of their electricity. They are in a unique situation where it makes more sense to just export most of the oil as crude and not worry about using it domestically. They only have two major refineries as it is.
Re: (Score:3)
https://global.toyota/en/mobil... [global.toyota]
Re: (Score:2)
Even then, that's only a maximum. At a sustained speed at one specific speed. Different speeds, accelerating/decelerating all lower that overall.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a bit surprised by some of the parent post numbers. I would have used 65% for combined cycle gas
Re: Zero emissions? (Score:2)
I tend to think that PHEV are a bad idea in the long run. You need to build two engines so as you get the best of both world you also get the worst of both world. You need two different types of infrastructure.
If we switch to BEV entirely then soon we will have charging about everywhere you park. Assuming we can solve the long term material sourcing for batteries. It does seem better long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to build two engines so as you get the best of both world you also get the worst of both world.
Well, one small engine and one small motor/battery combo. Each one is lighter and cheaper than the all-ICE or all-battery option. You can also optimize the ICE and electric system for specific driving regimes (e.g. the electric motor only needs to handle low-speed operation and the ICE only needs to handle highways and charging the battery). That lets each be more efficient than a single system.
At least, that's the design center. Near as I remember, ICEs are the cheapest to buy, PHEVs next, EVs are the most
Re: Zero emissions? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The electric percentage is not how you measure HEV/PHEV, though. Remember, the vehicles are primarily ICE vehicles but ones that have *very* efficient (at the cost of performance) engines where the electric portion exists for the portion of the driving envelope where the ICE won't be at maximum efficiency or if lots of extra power is ne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you by chance never charge it? It can only put out what was put in.
Re: Zero emissions? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's all about infrastructure and routines. On a trip I make to California, the hotel I stay at has chargers (free for some reason) so I don't have to buy gas and, in particular, don't have to stop outside the Oakland airp
Re: Zero emissions? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were expected to return it full of gas and battery charge, true, I'd still have to make that stop.
Re: Zero emissions? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Zero emissions? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is peak thermal efficiency output of the engine, not a conversion of chemical power in the fuel to power at the wheels. ICE vehicles have additional losses which through things such as gear boxes and torque converters which EVs do not. In addition to that the fact that an ICE has such a low thermal efficiency means that cooling needs to be provided, so on top of all the losses you have you can add the high minimum drag coefficient of an ICE vehicle compared to an EV.
The problem is far worse than you re
Re: (Score:3)
Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] there appears to be only 1 working natural gas fired power station in Norway. I think your comment about Norway using a "fair amount of fossil fuels" for electricity generation is misinformed.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, Norway is the world's ninth-largest exporter of oil. Switching to electric vehicles is like a drug dealer who no longer uses his own supply, letting him sell more to his clients.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
However it needs to be said that the main reason Norway exports as much as they do is their European allies no longer buy from Russia.
I doubt it. Norway has always exported as much oil as it can. Just like the United States, the world's leading producer of oil.
Whenever someone starts assigning emissions to a country or person its hard to know what they are really talking about. The United States has reduced its emissions the same way Bill Gates does. We pay someone else who assumes responsibility for the emissions while we get the benefits.
Norway sells oil and uses the proceeds to subsidize electric vehicles while the country buying the
Re: (Score:2)
The world uses oil to power transportation. Norway is at least using the revenue to help move us all away from that.
What are the UK and US doing with their oil money?
How did Norway get away with this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, as opposed to the oil industry doing regulatory capture of entire governments, like the US?
Norway works (Score:3)
Norway can and is able to extract and sell natural resources to other countries. No one is debating that or whether or not socialism leaning policies are bad.
The news article shouldn't exclude that Norway's ability to use its oil money to do social spending, and pro environment policies.
Large amounts of government social spending is funded through Oil, gas and coal extraction taxes: ...)
- Canada
- USA - oil producing regions of the USA (Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Alaska, California, Wyoming,
- USA
Re:Having a natural resource extraction economy he (Score:4, Informative)
Let me get this straight. Norway has a healthy economy and uses it to fund social programs that benefit the country and it's citizens? Why can't the USA do that?
Oh right, socialism=bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I have it on good authority that atmospheric science works all over the world, not just in Norway and Cuba.
Re: (Score:2)
the libs are absolutely enamored with cuba
I've never noticed liberals paying much attention to Cuba one way or another.
Right wing nut jobs, however, love bringing it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So one hour of US minimum wage.
Re: (Score:2)
Your problem remains. You need to register it locally and pay the required import duties. You can't just buy a car elsewhere and consider that all expenses done, moving a vehicle between countries (even within the EU) is actually pretty damn expensive, and Norway applies different costs depending on the type of vehicle being imported.