Norway Reached 96.9% Market Share For EVs In June (mobilityportal.eu) 155
Electric vehicles claimed a dominant 96.9% market share in Norway in June 2025, with the Tesla Model Y alone accounting for over 27% of all new car registrations. Mobility Portal Europe reports: According to the Norwegian Public Roads Administration (OFV), 17,799 new electric cars were registered in Norway in June out of a total of 18,376 new registrations. In this context, electric vehicles (EVs) held a market share of 96.9%. Compared to June 2024 -- when EVs made up 80% of all new registrations -- this technology increased by 3,790 units. In addition, in May 2025, Norway recorded 4,415 new EV registrations.
Last month, only 577 new registrations were for vehicles without fully electric drive systems. Among these were 152 plug-in hybrids (an 83.7% drop compared to June 2024) and 223 other types of hybrids (an 89.1% decline). Over the year, hybrids lost market share, falling from 17% to 2%. Pure combustion engines also further reduced their market presence: 142 new diesel vehicles represented 0.8% of the market share, down from 2% a year earlier, and 57 new petrol vehicles made up 0.3% of the market, compared to 1% in June 2024. "Several campaigns with 0% or very low interest rates on new car purchases significantly boosted sales. The first interest rate cut by Norges Bank helped ensure that many people bought their dream car," said Oyvind Solberg Thorsen, Director of OFV.
"It remained to be seen whether Tesla could maintain its strong position, and for how long."
Last month, only 577 new registrations were for vehicles without fully electric drive systems. Among these were 152 plug-in hybrids (an 83.7% drop compared to June 2024) and 223 other types of hybrids (an 89.1% decline). Over the year, hybrids lost market share, falling from 17% to 2%. Pure combustion engines also further reduced their market presence: 142 new diesel vehicles represented 0.8% of the market share, down from 2% a year earlier, and 57 new petrol vehicles made up 0.3% of the market, compared to 1% in June 2024. "Several campaigns with 0% or very low interest rates on new car purchases significantly boosted sales. The first interest rate cut by Norges Bank helped ensure that many people bought their dream car," said Oyvind Solberg Thorsen, Director of OFV.
"It remained to be seen whether Tesla could maintain its strong position, and for how long."
I am a bus rider. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
while a big bad ICE person seems to be paying thousands of dollars for what? their rights? their freedom?
Flexing on the poors.
Re:I am a bus rider. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I am a bus rider. (Score:3)
Re:EVs are not a solution beacuse of (Score:5, Insightful)
There's this bullshit lie again. Trolls are nothing if not ignorant copycats.
Smog is not tire particulate and EVs are only incrementally worse with tire wear, but better with brake pad wear. They sure are great at getting liars out to spread FUD though.
Re: (Score:3)
Quite a bit better on gas too
Re: (Score:3)
EVs are only incrementally worse with tire wear, but better with brake pad wear.
Tire wear is not necessarily faster with EVs, except for two factors. First, EVs are heavier, and the increased friction will increase tire wear. Second, EVs have "fun" acceleration, and outracing other cars when the light turns green will increase tire wear. With my first EV many years ago, I enjoyed the jackrabbit starts, but my tires had to be replaced after 20,000 miles. I drive differently now, and that makes a big difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Electric cars if anything are going to make [particulates] worse. They're heavier and they burn through tires faster because of it.
Yeah, bullshit. Tire wear is based on tire composition (winter tires wear faster than summer or all-season tires), tire width (less pressure per sq in for wider tires), and vehicle weight. Saying EVs create more tire particulates ignores all the differences between these factors like most ICE pickup trucks create more than most EV passenger vehicles. EVs might even reach parity with ICE vehicles once range anxiety lessens and drivers realize they don't need 400 mile ranges for daily drivers. Smaller batt
Re:EVs are not a solution beacuse of (Score:4, Insightful)
Tesla has been at approximately mass parity with its closest class/performance competitors from BMW (with a full tank of petrol) since 2017 (the 330i vs. the SR, the 340i vs. the LR, etc). This "EVs are super-heavy thing" is a myth. I mean, sure, if you're terrible at your job you can design a really heavy EV (*grumbles in Hummer*). But usually, if the designers did their job right, the weight difference is small when matched up on class/performance competitors.
And beyond what others pointed out - that PM emissions are only a fraction of pollutants, and that they come from both brakes and tyres, and EVs have far lower brake emissions - it should also be pointed out that tyre PM tends to be mainly *coarse PM*, not fine PM. Both are harmful, but fine PM is significantly more harmful per amount produced. Brakes have a higher ratio of fine to coarse than tyres do, exhaust is higher still.
Cars also have air filters which capture PM. Generally well less than is produced, but I've seen a proof of concept where they amped up the air filtration so that the car was net negative. If you really wanted to, nothing is stopping you from mandating that. Still, economically your best bet is surely on taxing tyres (esp. studded ones) to incentivize people to choose durable ones and ones that don't wear down the roads, to limit hard accel / braking, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking nonsense. A Tesla Model Y battery is 1700 pounds, whereas a full gastank of a typical sedan is less than 150 pounds. The battery thus increases the weight of the Model Y by about 35% versus a similar gas fired sedan. So you see, it is no myth, the EV is HEAVY.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
A Tesla Model Y battery is 1700 pounds, whereas a full gastank of a typical sedan is less than 150 pounds. The battery thus increases the weight of the Model Y by about 35% versus a similar gas fired sedan.
No because the electric motor is lighter than the combo of engine and transmission. Electric vehicles are heavier. The car after a quick search I found closest in length to the Model 3 is the Skoda Octavia. The weight difference is between 5 and 25% depending on which configurations you choose.
So yeah EV
Check the title: Norway (Score:2)
Tire particulate.
Check the /. item's title: It's Norway we're speaking about.
i.e.: a rich European country.
So a country with a not to shabby public transport network [wikipedia.org].
Thus compared to, say, the USA: it's already doing quite some efforts toward shifting traffic away from personal vehicles and toward much more efficient transportation systems that have a lot less problems per passenger than private vehicles.
Public transport is the best solution to reduce travelling-related pollution, but can't cover 100% of cases.
EV are a "go
Re:I am a bus rider. (Score:5, Interesting)
The next best thing I think is an EV. Down that ladder is a Uber person. Last is an ICE engine person. I laugh at the big bad person who drives an ICE thing, while I simply wait for someone else to drive me while I read and I pay less than $40 a month while a big bad ICE person seems to be paying thousands of dollars for what? their rights? their freedom? bullshit.
My daily driver went from a Dodge Charger Hellcat (v8 6.2L supercharged ICE w/707hp) to Hyundai Ioniq 5N (EV w/640hp) that is faster, brakes faster, corners better, and literally beats the Hellcat in every driving metric on every track... by a lot.
It just doesn't sound like the Hellcat. Granted. Style. There's a visceral quality to the sound of a high-displacement engine. Granted.
But... I checked my bills. I'm paying an average of $36 CDN a month more on my electricity bills compared to prior to the change. I was spending nearly $300/mo on premium gas for the Hellcat.
It's really, really, really hard to ignore that I spent over $18,000 for fuel in six years in the Hellcat and I'm going to spend under $3,000 in the same time. For a faster, sportier, more agile car with more interior space, more utility, and has its own style.
Where I live, most of our electricity comes from nuclear and hydro-electric turbines at natural waterfalls... we were 91% renewable four years ago. My electricity is clean. My carbon footprint is nil. I don't regret the 9,000+ litres of gas the Hellcat burned. At the time it was the coolest monster car I could afford. But I absolutely, positively won't look back from the 5N.
Sure, sure, it'll cost me time and money if I randomly decide I need to drive across the planet but... the v8 rumble isn't worth it. Any of it.
EVs aren't for everyone and every use-case. Again, granted. But the cases where they aren't better are much more rare than the nay-sayers would have folks believe. If you can, do it. If you truly can't... okay, cool, understood... but maybe support the infrastructure expansion that'll get you there, not undermine it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I like the idea of putting straight pipes on my motorcycle. But I don't necessarily like the reality of it.
Re: (Score:2)
> It just doesn't sound like the Hellcat.
Thank you for no longer being a sociopath!
Re: (Score:3)
Style.
Oh I would argue it beats it on style. Unless your single style requirement is "Look at me, I'm a selfish arsehole who insists on driving something that you will be forced to listen to. Check out how small my penis is!"
Jokes aside I find the 5N to be a very nice looking car. It just oozes style in the form of "look at this high tech wonder that can spank most other cars on the road" instead of "I look like I drive over pedestrians for a living get the fuck out of my way" style of the Hellcat.
Style is in the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Curious - I like the idea of the N, it's not a car for me but I can very easily see its appeal as a useful vehicle that still adds a bit of a fun factor.
Re: I am a bus rider. (Score:2)
Re: I am a bus rider. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is incredibly unimportant to almost everyone who might actually buy a car
Re: (Score:2)
Busses are fantastic. Not just because of the fuel savings, but you can move a lot more people for a given amount of road surface. There would be very little traffic congestion if most of the commute traffic were busses.
Trains are pretty great as well. But the US didn't invest in rail infrastructure and so doesn't have a viable rail system to usefully place passenger trains on.
I have an ICE vehicle, for a lot of complicated reasons. some of it to move things around on my own property. The other is that Uber
Re: (Score:3)
If anything is badly designed, including road infrastructure, it can rapidly become the least attractive alternative. But well-designed light rail can be one of the best forms of public transport: much lower cost than heavy rail or subways, flexible integration with the urban fabric, higher capacity than eg buses, and typically much more reliable timetabling than eg buses because of dedicated rights-of-way and signalling priorities. But you have to go to Bordeaux or Amsterdam or Manchester UK to experience
Re: (Score:2)
Public transportation is fine if you can live your life on its schedule and reside somewhere with decent transit infrastructure. If it works for you, great, I'm not going to piss in your Cheerios. However, having a car significantly expands both your options for housing and choices of employers, and in most cases you still come out ahead, even after factoring in the costs of car ownership.
Re: I am a bus rider. (Score:5, Interesting)
Having a car is a liability in many big cities in the world. My mother in Paris hasn't driven in 30 years. You would have a very hard time parking that car in Paris on an average day, let alone if everybody that lives in apartments owned one. And it already takes longer to get around with a car than with transit for many journeys. Can't imagine if there were 10 to 100x the number of cars there.
My sister has never driven. She has 2 kids. She works. She lives in a suburb, not downtown Paris.
The reality is that public transit can work very well, in places designed for it, and far better than having a car in those places.
The US is a very large country, and its transportation need and policies are far different. Nevertheless, transit could work very well in large US cities too, as it does in most western cities around the world, if there was a will.
I'm looking to return to France due to vision problems that limit my ability to drive. There isn't any good location for transit in the US, IMO, except perhaps NYC, which I wouldn't want to live in for various reasons. Whereas most decent size cities in France have extremely good transit. I look forward to being in a one car household, and not driving anymore myself.
Re: I am a bus rider. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And the beautiful thing is, both groups think they are the correct ones.
Re: (Score:2)
If not this then what? (Re:Not really) (Score:2, Interesting)
If nuclear power and electric vehicles aren't the solutions we are looking for then what should we be looking for?
It is not helpful to tell us we are on the wrong path if you can't point us to the correct path. No solution is perfect so we must choose the least bad options. The IPCC and others will tell us that new nuclear power is lower cost than combined cycle natural gas, and certainly far lower in CO2 emissions. As much as people will bring up safety issues of nuclear power we have statistics that sh
tires are A problem but not THE problem (Score:3)
And I know nobody here likes to hear it cuz it's a guaranteed way for me to get modded down but most of the pollution coming from cars is from their tires now. I mean no kidding we've had zero emissions cars for something like 25 years now.
You're conflating climate change from CO2 emissions with pollution from tires breaking down into microparticles.
I believe you're presented this non sequitur in good faith. But let's straighten this one thing out.
ICE vehicles get you tire pollution and CO2 emissions.
BEVs get you tire pollution and significantly less CO2 emissions.
So BEVs are the superior choice. They still are imperfect because they harm the environment through tires, mining of materials for its components.
But refusing to act until a perfect
Re: (Score:3)
The reason you keep getting modded down on this is because you keep saying the same bullshit each time, despite being corrected.
1. EVs are massively better for carbon intensity than ICE but still not as good as active travel and public transport. You are so obviously arguing that EVs aren’t better because you’re worried they might distract from active and public transport, instead of looking at the facts, and it’s ridiculous. And anyway, EVs are important for public transport too — b
Re: Not really (Score:2)
Tire particulate emissions are no worse with EVs than ICE, and arguably better. Read the many other posts on the subject, from so many who have corrected you over the years. You are just ignoring facts and trolling, at this point.
The benefits of EVs for the environment vs ICE are very real, not illusory. They are incremental. They won't solve all of climate change on their own. But they absolutely are part of the solution. ICE are part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
If you must have cs clogging up your cities, running over people and generally making a mess then EVs do all of that while killing fewer people with pollution than ICE cars. Tires aren't the only thing, there are also exhaust gases and brake dust.
They also have lower lifetime CO2 even when run off coal.
Speaking of... which countries have the lowest CO2 per TWh electricity generation?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Imperial College London did a study that claimed that 52% of road particulate emissions came from tires and brakes, and that most of it goes into water and only 18% ends in the air. The solution to these emissions is better materials in tires and filtration, and there are tires on all cars.
But these are not carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming.
Transportation accounts for about a quarter of global greenhouse gases, and of that, 70% comes from road tr
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, the collective Slashdot default mindset is much more US-centric than non-US-centric. We hear plenty of people confidently saying stuff about how public transport can never work and what they mean is “I’ve never seen it working where I live in the US” or that it’s impossible for the state to deliver good healthcare for its citizens etc etc. For those of us here who are from outside the US, this gets tiresome pretty quick. We understand these problems and limitations are ve
There are cities around the world with a higher po (Score:2)
While this is great for Norway and EV promotion, never forget that there are cities across the world with higher population and some of them run on 2 stroke engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Never forget that the portion of accumulated CO2 generated in those cities is a tiny 5, maybe 10% of it all.
Their two-stroke mopeds aren't the largest problem that needs to be solved.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think EV bikes, mopeds, rickshaws etc aren’t growing really damn fast in those cities, you haven’t been paying attention. Right across India, Bangladesh, Nepal and SE Asia, growth is off the charts
Not a plan every nation can emulate. (Score:4, Interesting)
Norway has, or maybe had, a 25% VAT on new vehicles but waived this for EVs to encourage adoption. This is a nation of under 6 million people, Minnesota has more people than Norway. This works for Norway because their vehicle demand is relatively tiny compared to the rest of the world, there's enough global EV production that demand created by this tax in Norway had no real impact on EV prices.
If the USA were to do something like this then demand for EVs would be such that prices would be driven up until the tax benefits are lost. The high price on EVs, or rather the high tax on ICEVs, would drive up production eventually but it takes time to build new factories. Then is the issue of already seeing a shortage of lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other raw material for batteries. If the USA were to subsidize EV sales like Norway then there's not likely to be enough batteries to go around, that means high prices to get demand to match supply.
I expect that the ICEV as we know them today will soon be obsolete as EV technologies trickle into new designs to improve efficiency and comfort. The PHEV will likely be the default option for more cars and light trucks as they offer all electric commutes without the high costs of a battery large enough to carry the vehicle for 250+ miles. If the battery supply problem isn't sorted out soon enough, and there's some events that drive up fuel prices, then we may see BEVs with a range under 100 miles like the GM EV1 from the 1990s. A short range BEV would do fine as a second car for households with more than one driver, or as an only vehicle for people that don't expect to drive far like retirees or university students.
It's a neat little trick that Norway pulled off on getting wide adoption of EVs but they are in a unique situation to make that happen. If the USA is to follow their lead then we will need to see considerable expansion in mining for a number of vital minerals, and considerable expansion in manufacturing.
I'm not sure if I see any reason for concern on public EV charging infrastructure. First is that it appears that things are going well on placing EV chargers where needed. Second is that it appears there's still the widely held view that a BEV is to be considered a secondary vehicle, as in while there may be a Chevy Bolt parked in the garage there will be a Ford F-150 parked next to it. That will likely be the case for some time. The USA is very large and people like to drive. There can be talk of how fast an EV will charge but it is not likely to ever catch up to pumping gasoline or diesel fuel. With the long haul trucks unlikely to switch to all-electric there will not be a shortage of places to fill up an ICEV or PHEV for long drives.
Re:Not a plan every nation can emulate. (Score:4, Insightful)
The PHEV will likely be the default option for more cars and light trucks as they offer all electric commutes without the high costs of a battery large enough to carry the vehicle for 250+ miles.
I think will likely only be true for the USA with its weird range requirements.
Elsewhere people no longer buy hybrids to save costs. With BEVs now reaching price parity in many countries on basic cars they are the way to save money. The people buying hybrids now are getting them because classic non-hybrid ICEV are becoming rare, not because they specifically want a hybrid.
Now people are getting used to reality of BEVs the FUD is having less effect and as people start seeing sticker prices on BEVs becoming cheaper than hybrids and ICEV you can expect what happened in Norway to be a common trend.
Re: Not a plan every nation can emulate. (Score:2)
"Weird range requirements"
You seem to be suffering from the same problem Americans do with respect to the scale of European countries. You need to realize that there are highways in America with almost 400 kilometers between gas stations. Less common than it used to be, but happens.
Plus, I don't want to wait an hour for my car to charge. I'd like to be able to get through a day's driving on a single charge, and charge it while I sleep. Or have easily swappable batteries.
Whatever, why am I even wasting my ti
Re: (Score:2)
The distances are easy to imagine, but the reasons to use a car to cross them are much more difficult to. Who in their sound mind would want to spend a whole day behind a steering wheel unless being paid for it? Flying longer distances is much faster. It also allows one to do something productive in the time - unless flying the airplane as a pilot, of course, but in this particular case it at least adds flight hours to the logbook and stay current so it can count as productive.
Re: (Score:2)
Airplanes don't go to a lot of the places you might want to drive to in the US. You'd have to fly into the nearest airport, rent a car, and then drive to your destination. This would take much longer and cost more than driving there directly. Do I wish that we had a better rail network that went everywhere I would want to go, yes of course, but we don't, and won't in my lifetime.
Re: Not a plan every nation can emulate. (Score:2)
Again, you don't appear to understand the scale, nor the demographics. True, I am sure there is more civil aviation infrastructure in the US than Europe, and probably more private aircraft ownership as well. But vast swathes of the populace can't afford private plane ownership, nor the cost of a rental car once they get to their destination, needed because of lack of mass transit. Imagine that.
Also, we don't have the passenger rail capacity nor culture to use it that Europe has. Our long-distance passenger
Re: (Score:3)
We know these highways exist. We also know that a relatively tiny fraction of Americans use these highways, just like a relatively tiny fraction of Americans go on vast road trips where they drive hundreds of miles with only five minute stops for gas. These are not a sufficiently large percentage of total miles travelled to justify the US’s policy approach to EVs or to provide a rational explanation of consumer reluctance to purchase. But consumers don’t behave in a (wholly) rational way, anywhe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get through a day's d
Re: (Score:2)
Once people own an EV and understand what the range means and how charging works, they tend to lose interest in hybrids. You have so many downsides - a whole ICE that you have to lug around and maintain, combined with a small battery.
To give you an idea, Bjorn Nyland does 1000km tests of EVs against a reference PHEV that he filled up with dino juice. The PHEV clocked in at around 9.5 hours, and the best EVs are under 10 hours. He hasn't tested the ultra fast 5m charging ones yet.
Most people will want a brea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had that problem back in the day with an original Leaf, and its small battery. Would pop in to IKEA for some free charging and lunch, and my phone would notify me of the charge ending before I was done eating.
Re: (Score:3)
I would not call American's range requirements "weird" but rather "unique" given the size of the nation, freedom of travel, and thinly spread population.
1. You don't drive from Hump Tulips to Fluffy Landings daily.
2. Muh freedumbs? Really?
3. American is 80% urban population. The average daily driving distance is around 42 miles.
That would be 10 days driving without a recharge in the best EVs.
In the UK as an example the longest drive between any two points will not exceed 850 miles. I can drive that far in
Re: (Score:2)
25% VAT is normal in Europe. To be part of the EU or EEA you have to have VAT between something like 20% and 25%, I forget the exact numbers. It's on the high end, but not massively out of whack with what most Europeans pay in tax on cars.
As for it being a "small" country, it is physically large and has a fairly hostile climate. That makes it good for stress testing EVs, and they have proven to cope better than fossil fuel powered cars. In particular, EVs offer much better comfort in terms of things like cl
Re: Norway is cold AF (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Norway is relatively small. Norway has a relatively large fiscal surplus from natural resource exports they partly spend on EVs. Norway has an electrical grid created for resistive heating, which now has surplus overcapacity as they switched to heatpumps. Norway has a relatively high percentage of citizens with private parking.
Norway being relatively cold doesn't mean much.
It'll never work (Score:5, Funny)
It'll never work. Norway is too cold. And no one wants EVs anyway. And what if the Norwegians need to haul industrial loads across Europe?
These Norwegians are confused. They don't know they're ruining everything by going electric. The ICE people told me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It'll never work (Score:2)
I would pay the 140% tariff to import a BYD if I could get it registered. But my understanding is the only way to do that is like for a temporary test vehicle. The CEO of Ford has one for testing, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: It'll never work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of which, EV articulated lorries (big trucks) are a thing in Europe and seem to be working just fine. Norway has EV ferries too, some with wireless charging.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll never work. Norway is too cold. And no one wants EVs anyway. And what if the Norwegians need to haul industrial loads across Europe?
These Norwegians are confused. They don't know they're ruining everything by going electric. The ICE people told me.
But ... but ... Teslas?!? Are the Norwegians Nazis now?!?
Whenever an outlier like Norway (Score:2)
is dragged into the limelight in this fasion, the agenda is obvious. It is quite tiresome.
Small population. China alone has about 20 cities with a population larger than that of the country Norway. There are about 60 of them worldwide.
Natural resources. Norway also has something like 0.5% of the global oil reserves, which may not sound like a lot, but it only has around 0.075% of the global population. Per capita, these are riches. This fortune is properly invested and managed by a functioning governmen
Re: (Score:2)
You’re arguing with a straw man, and ignoring the fact that there *are* lessons that policy-makers elsewhere who want to accelerate a transition to EVs can learn from. For example, Norway shows financial incentives can work effectively. It doesn’t have to be a VAT waiver, and it doesn’t have to be as large as that. The psychological component of having a financial benefit only available to EV owners is a powerful component. We’ve seen this in London UK, where lower parking charges an
Re: Whenever an outlier like Norway (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ICE cars have unpriced negative externalities today: they damage our lungs, cause climate change, etc. Reflecting those costs in the price of the vehicles isn’t discriminatory. If you have one, it’s not unreasonable that you pay for the damage you’re causing. The fact some people feel they have to have one doesn’t affect this. Maybe they do, but they are still causing that damage, and someone has to pick up the tab, and it’s fair that it’s them.
And of course, we are very
Re: Whenever an outlier like Norway (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t know the specifics of how carbon taxes worked in Canada. I highly doubt you have paid all the externalities of your ICE vehicle. For a start, carbon taxes don’t cover noise and NOx/SOx, which are also extremely harmful to human (and animal) health. And most carbon taxes really don’t begin to cover the true costs and risks we all share of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. They’d have needed to be dramatically higher to do that
Re: Whenever an outlier like Norway (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a straw man. Why else would one want to present the Norwegian figure as front page news, if not to insinuate "See! Proof! Easy!" ? If the intended audience could be relied upon to be completely aware of Norway's outlier status and unique conditions, loudly pitching their figure would be in between redundant and silly.
There is nothing out of the ordinary or visionary about Norway's individual policies that would merit copying them especially and not others. They can do what they're doing because
Re: (Score:2)
I think the strawman is “it’s a breeze”. There was nothing in the original article that said that. I’ve never seen an article about Norwegian EVs that’s implied it’s a breeze. The vast majority of those articles talk at length about the sovereign wealth fund and oil money etc. The “it’s a breeze” is something you’re hearing as an implication but isn’t actually being said by anyone. *That’s* why it’s a strawman.
Norway’s polic
Re: (Score:2)
Norway’s policies were particularly well-designed, and that’s why they’re worth looking to.
Mmmh. So the metric isn't "100%"!!!, it's how smartly they removed incentives such as bus lanes. We'd see Norway pitched all over the place, even if, in the absence of the actual elephant factors in the room, such measures had only taken them from average to slightly better. Right?
It's the smart incentives and clever policies, not the highest EV adption by far, supported and enabled virtually exclusively by the glaring structural advantages, that get Norway mentioned constantly as the EV trailblazer count
Re: (Score:2)
The measure of the value of an incentive such as bus lane travel is how effectively it drives the transition. I don’t know what point you think you’re making here, but it just all seems odd. Is it something about Norway’s successful transition was not down to the incentives but instead to do with wealth, or that the incentives were only successful because wealth funded them, or what? I don’t follow.
Obviously, Norway gets highlighted in articles for its high adoption. Then those artic
Re: (Score:2)
The point is simple. NO may have implemented clever polices, good on them, but I simply don't believe that any of them are pivotal to their being so drastically ahead. Good policies are necessary, but not sufficient. I also don't believe that policymakers in NO are vastly smarter than those in other western countries - no offence.
By and large, good governance tends to converge in its results between comparable political systems, and policies can only optimize, not revolutionize. If a country is so vastly
Re: (Score:2)
Small population. China alone has about 20 cities with a population larger than that of the country Norway. There are about 60 of them worldwide.
China is doing quite well in terms of EVs per capita, behind the Nordics, but level with the best of the remaining European nations, and about 4x America. Around 50% of new car sales are Electric in China.
So, what's your point?
Re: Whenever an outlier like Norway (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it even get cold in China?
Can't do. Also China's small isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
That Norway has a very small population, primarily. Which is one, but certainly not the only point in their advantage.
Great that China is doing comparatively well. Doesn't alter the fact however that it's somewhat silly to point to Norway, hoping to demonstrate that like them we could all have 100% EV right now if only we really wanted to, rather than stubbornly sticking with ICEs for general principle.
Re: (Score:2)
That Norway has a very small population, primarily.
The only real difference that makes is whether there is sufficient supply. EV's are at over 20% of all car sales worldwide and climbing.
Doesn't alter the fact however that it's somewhat silly to point to Norway, hoping to demonstrate that like them we could all have 100% EV right now if only we really wanted to, rather than stubbornly sticking with ICEs for general principle.
It debunks the problems about coldness and charging infrastructure since that's a p
Re: (Score:2)
The only real difference that makes is whether there is sufficient supply. EV's are at over 20% of all car sales worldwide and climbing.
Worldwide figures are not relevant in this context, the question is why NO is ahead of the world by leaps and bounds. Population size is not relevant in isolation but all the more so in conjunction with the other factors. Short answer: they're ahead because a/ they want to be and b/ because they have unique structural advantages, which other countries, who also very much would like to be ahead, do not have.
It debunks the problems about coldness and charging infrastructure since that's a per-capita issue, not a size issue.
I'm not talking about the climate at all, that's not a relevant factor imo. Being loaded from fossil s
Re: (Score:2)
Worldwide figures are not relevant in this context,
They are if it's a question of scale.
Short answer: they're ahead because a/ they want to be and b/ because they have unique structural advantages, which other countries, who also very much would like to be ahead, do not have.
A is vastly more important than b. America is the richest country in the world. In terms of GDP per capita, Norway is a bit ahead but not wildly so. France has oodles of electricity and a substantially lower GDP per capita (a bit over
Other key numbers re Norway’s EV market (Score:3)
Last September, the number of EVs on the road exceeded the number of petrol vehicles: 754,303 vs 753,905.
EV penetration of the total market is currently a little under 30%, and should exceed 50% by 2029.
Re: (Score:2)
As if replicating Norway is somehow a bad idea, or that Norway is somehow a villain for exporting oil.
Funny how /. attracts the lowest quality trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They get there by selling oil to other countri (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. Norway lets companies sell oil, but they tax those companies about 50% of it. But government doesn't spent that money instantly, instead they put that money into a fund.
This makes a big difference, because there are several countries in the history that got rich with the oil, but they either let the rich or the companies to have it all, or they spent it all instead of securing their future.
Re: (Score:3)
Tax rate on oil production is 78%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My bet (Score:4, Informative)
1. Norway isn't a big producer (2.2% of world);
2. its market share shrinks mechanically every time a big player decides to increase their production;
3. the production of the world has been on steady linear increase since the 1980s (+42% since 1982), dwarfing even more Norway every year;
4. Norway already made the decision to reduce their impact and cut by 41.8% their production since their 2001 peak.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Norway already made the decision to reduce their impact and cut by 41.8% their production since their 2001 peak.
This is a business decision to maximize revenue, not an effort to "minimize impact".
Their oil fields are hitting peak production and the oil and gas prices are set to increase in the foreseeable future.
It only makes sense for them to do delay output, as the return from selling it later would be higher than the alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still going to be converted into CO2, so what's it matter.
That's where we don't agree. The 2% are too small to matter in the market. If Norway stopped producing its 2% and the price changed, big players OPEC or USA would compensate to keep the price at the value they want it. Also nobody would change their consuming habits.
Re: My bet (Score:2)
Re:My bet (Score:4, Interesting)
My bet is that Norway stopping oil sales would have a better effect on "climate change" than reaching 100% domestic EV market share.
I'd bet that Norway stopping oil sales would simply mean some other nations pick up that slack.
We are seeing a number of oil exporting nations wanting to build nuclear power plants for domestic electricity production so they can export more oil than burn it for electricity. What has also changed is natural gas has become valued enough to be liquefied for export on large LNG carriers where it was fairly routine to burn it off in the open air at oil wells, or piped to cities for heating and cooking at low prices, as it was considered a waste product of petroleum production.
With more electricity produced by means other than petroleum and natural gas that means more is available for export, and not just for fuel but also for things like plastics and fertilizers. With more cars and light trucks moving to electric power then that means more petroleum for large trucks, trains, ships, aircraft, and again chemicals like plastics and fertilizers.
The CO2 emissions from human activity can be described as coming from three roughly equal sources, transportation, electricity, and "other". The "other" category covers a lot of things so it would be difficult to tackle them all. Electricity production is low hanging fruit here as we have options like onshore wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear fission as low cost and low CO2 alternatives. We can nibble around the edges on CO2 emissions in transportation with electric cars, trucks, trains, and perhaps more. Nuclear powered ships should be a thing beyond just aircraft carriers and other large military vessels. Getting aircraft and other vehicles from burning kerosene and diesel fuel is not likely to be solved any time soon but by nibbling around the edges enough we could see CO2 emissions from transport cut in half.
I expect we will continue to burn fossil fuels for at least another 100 years. What we can do is shift as much as we can to known working alternatives. I expect this transition to take a very long time, that is unless we see something as disruptive to the global economy as World War Part Two. The way things are going right now we could see that happen very soon.