Slashdot Mirror
Over Half of Norway Car Sales Are Now Electric (reuters.com)
The Norwegian Road Federation (NRF) said on Monday that almost 60 percent of all new cars sold in the country last month were fully electric, "a global record as the country seeks to end fossil-fueled vehicles sales by 2025," reports Reuters. From the report: Exempting battery engines from taxes imposed on diesel and petrol cars has upended Norway's auto market, elevating brands like Tesla and Nissan, with its Leaf model, while hurting sales of Toyota, Daimler and others. In 2018, Norway's fully electric car sales rose to a record 31.2 percent market share from 20.8 percent in 2017, far ahead of any other nation, and buyers had to wait as producers struggled to keep up with demand.
The surge of electric cars to a 58.4 percent market share in March came as Tesla ramped up delivery of its mid-sized Model 3, which retails from 442,000 crowns ($51,400), while Audi began deliveries of its 652,000-crowns e-tron sports utility vehicle. The sales figures consolidate Norway's global lead in electric car sales per capita, part of an attempt by Western Europe's biggest producer of oil and gas to transform to a greener economy.
The surge of electric cars to a 58.4 percent market share in March came as Tesla ramped up delivery of its mid-sized Model 3, which retails from 442,000 crowns ($51,400), while Audi began deliveries of its 652,000-crowns e-tron sports utility vehicle. The sales figures consolidate Norway's global lead in electric car sales per capita, part of an attempt by Western Europe's biggest producer of oil and gas to transform to a greener economy.
Norway has severe weather, sub zero temperatures for much of the year, heavy snow, and people need to travel long distances. All the things that people say make EVs unsuitable.
Norway put in the infrastructure. Charging everywhere. EVs work great there.
Well done Norway.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Oh, a bit of digging says that they are almost entirely hydroelectric production, so this is an actual real reduction in fossil fuel dependance. Awesome!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Norway has a fair bit of hydro electric power. Also, Norwegian roads tend to vary between "hilly" to "steep", which is another win for electric motors. I doubt, if you look at it from a purely technical aspect, you could find a country better suited for electrical vehicles than Norway, so their prevalence is no surprise.
Nope, they have a lot of hydro. I spent a few weeks in Norway (not recently, it was ~40 years ago, before they became oil-rich and the price of everything skyrocketed), electricity was so cheap that lights were on 100% of the time. Basically the switches were only used to change light bulbs.
I remember entering a hotel room in Tromsø, and I was so surprised that I counted the light bulbs (incandescent at the time): 43, all left on after cleaning while there was nobody inside!
This was in July, in an area where there are over 20 hours of sunlight per day.
In a country which generates more electric energy from hydroplants than it actually uses (Norway is a net exporter of electric energy), fuel cells just don't make sense at all.
The "fair bit" in this case is: more hydro electric power than the country actually uses, or more than 100 percent hydro powered.
Definitely sounds like your average Joe cant afford those. @ $50k US?
Teir "cities", like Bergen for example, look more like towns in Alaska.
And they are surrounded by waterfalls.
An entry level manual VW Golf / Honda Civic / Ford Focus type of car is 300,000 NoK - about $35,000.
The very cheapest new cars you can buy are around $15,000 - $17,000 - and those are really for city driving only with 60-70hp 1-liter engines.
A VW Golf electric is about the same price as a petrol one.
Large EV sales in norway are due to subsidies to the tune of the equivalent of USD~10-30000 pr. car:
* Goods (including cars) normally carry a 25% VAT. BEVs are exempted. (Easily worth USD 10-20000)
* Non BEV cars additionally carry taxes calculated from emissions and weight. Additional taxes for cars tend to range from the USD equivalent of USD 2000 to many tens of thousands for large performance cars.
* There are a lot of toll roads in norway. Many car drivers can spend the equivalent of USD 3000 annually on tolls. BEVs are expempted from tolls. (This benefit will likely be reduced shortly, but a 50% saving has been assured)
* Many cities have free parking for BEVs (Also likely to be a reduced benefit going forward)
For usability: Most roads are limited to 80km/h and most drivers do not drive excessively long distances. 15000 km annually is the average.
The parts of norway where very long driving distances are common (Northern Norway) BEV penetration is very low.
Winter range of BEVs can drop a bit on the coldest days but norway is mostly temperate. Subzero temperatures usually only occur 30-60 days pr. year in most populated areaes. (Though it varies greatly, but so does BEV adoption)
Note that the high numbers of EV sales in march is significantly due to that Tesla delivered ~5000 cars in. Tesla tends to deliver cars towards the end of the quarter, and Q1 saw the first availability of model 3 which had a large pent up demand, so do not expect next month to repeat this number.
Wouldn't more people make it easier??
And they burn their garbage for energy.
Getting rid of garbage is probably the greater motivation. It's not like they have too few energy sources.
Ezekiel 23:20
From what I can tell, turning CO2 back into gasoline using solar power towers in deserts, and "burning" that in fuel cells, is still more efficient than the whole solar-to-hvdc-to-battery-charging-to-battery-using-to-electric-motors procedure.
"More efficient" how? Even just electrolysis+fuel cell with pure hydrogen has a 40% round trip efficiency, and that's even before you try to make a hydrocarbon out of it. "The whole solar-to-hvdc-to-battery-charging-to-battery-using-to-electric-motors" is somewhere around 80% or so.
Ezekiel 23:20
You have to look at real-world driving patterns at one point, not on some fictional scenarios you apparently imagine happening every single day. Also, the energy return of hydrocarbon synthesis is less than half of the one of charging batteries, so there's that. Plus there's also the advantages of widespread V1G/V2G deployment from the grid's perspective.
Ezekiel 23:20
Even /. that is tolerant of pot and porn is hostile and call the CEO a pot smoking fraud. Well orchestrated campaign is on to oust the star CEO to hobble its ability to raise capital.
Structure the tax break to punish the ones that take early lead and risk. Tax break for Tesla and GM EVs are being phased out while the imports enjoy full benefit.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
With gasoline cars, there is never an end. We have to get rid of diesel trucks and gasoline cars.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Gasoline lasts a whole lot more miles per 100kg of fuel, than 100kg of batteries do.
Which only makes sense if you want to ride more than 2000 km without stopping. For all other uses, this is totally irrelevant.
Driver further, get around corners better, break faster.
The last two are purely a design problem, if they actually exist. And most people will never be able to tell the difference.
And you can "recharge" in seconds.
This is only relevant if you are recharging while on a trip. But a normal car sits in a parking lot 22 to 23 hrs a day, time enough for recharging.
And your tank does not get smaller every time you use it.
But the efficiency of your energy conversoin gets worse every time you use it.
And gasoline has no lithium in it. Plus you can actually put the fires out that it causes. :)
This is only relevant for today's battery technology. If for instance, sulfur-air-batteries are available for normal use, you don't need to mine Lithium anymore.
Charging batteries is not a free action either, but very inefficient. As OP said, turning electricity and CO2 into gasoline might well be more efficient.
Actually, it's worse, you lose about 50% energy to the environment compared with 10% for recharging.
Oh, a bit of digging says that they are almost entirely hydroelectric production, so this is an actual real reduction in fossil fuel dependance. Awesome!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But this is entirely offset by Norway being one of the biggest net contributors to CO2 emissions world wide through their oil exports.
And oil. To exchange for foreign green electrictiy.
One source[1] says Norway produced about 150BkWH of electricity in 2018; nearly all of it from hydro. It exported about 22BkWH and imported about 6BkWH. Doesn't appear to me that they need to exchange oil for electricity.
Looks more to me like they're exchanging oil for Teslas, sovereign wealth, and giving Norwegians one of the highest standards of living in the world.
And they burn their garbage for energy.
And they don't have a big population either. There are more people in my city that their entire country.
Yeah, let that sink in.
I
bet if my city was surrounded by waterfalls instead of even more people, we couls do that too.
Orly? You have lots of hydro power? And giant oil and gas reserves too? What are you doing with it?
But then again, we'd probably be a lake. ;)
Oh, a bit of digging says that they are almost entirely hydroelectric production, so this is an actual real reduction in fossil fuel dependance. Awesome!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Good luck getting more dams built in the US to provide more hydroelectric power....
The same folks pining for all electric cars and who hate fossil fuels will also do anything and everything they can to block new dams.
Norway has severe weather, sub zero temperatures for much of the year, heavy snow, and people need to travel long distances. All the things that people say make EVs unsuitable.
People who say such things are people who do not own and/or have not driven EVs. Yes there are some infrastructure issues for long distance travel still to be ironed out but the solutions are in sight. Furthermore in the mean time if I really need to drive a long distance I still own a gas powered truck or I can easily rent a car for a very reasonable price for my rare trip longer than the 238 mile range of my EV. It's not like the gasoline infrastructure is going to disappear any time soon.
I own an EV (Chevy Bolt) and honestly I don't see myself buying a non-EV or plug in hybrid ever again if I have a choice. I've owned a number of hatchbacks over the years including some hot hatches and the Bolt is just in a different league in most respects from similar cars. It's more far fuel efficient, smoother to drive, quieter, accelerates better at any speed than all but the most ridiculous of hot hatches, requires FAR less maintenance, eliminates gas station stops, is more fun to drive, and the list goes on. Even if you ignore the eco stuff altogether, it's just a better car in most ways than its ICE equivalents. The cold does impact its range some but not enough to really cause any serious problems except in the rarest of corner cases. Put some good snow tires on just like any other car and it's fine in the bad weather. In fact it's better in the snow than my previous hatchback (a VW Golf GL) by quite a lot.
I'm anxiously awaiting companies to start releasing electrified pickups and EVs with at least 50-100 miles of electric range or preferably completely EV. I'm watching the Rivian and Tesla offerings closely and hoping they motivate Ford/GM/FCA to get seriously busy with EV versions of their trucks too.
Even so, electricity isn't free. So when you do burn trash, capturing that heat and putting it into warming homes is a nice bonus (it's distributed via hot water pipes).
Socialism is Easy when you are an oil-rich country with a low population.
Surely you are talking about the USA?
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Yes, that and the fact that they can afford all of these huge expenditures in infrastructure and subsidies because they became rich through oil.
We could produce enough power by plopping down a few nukes. Modern designs that can reuse some of the "spent" fuel we already have lying about.
That would give us the time to perfect all those technologies that are not there yet and incrementally supplant the nukes as time goes by.
What we are doing now is hoping for the lottery jackpot to happen while not wanting to sell auntie Mabel's villa on the hill because it has sentimental value.
Yes a AC a huge new tax to sway the population to have to pay for a new electric car.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The EV's are no longer EXEMPT from taxes. Gotta pay for all the infrastructure somehow. Eliminate gas vehicles and gas taxes and the money will HAVE to come from somewhere else... Just saying...
Oh and ask the Norwegians what the battery life is in those vehicles with the harsh winters. I live in Wisconsin and our winters make batteries have short lives. I have to buy batteries for vehicles every 3 years. EV's are not a good solution for areas with harsh winter cold temperatures - period! People with their Toyota Prius's are using more gas in them as the batteries don't run as long in the harsh winters - I know 3 people with them. I went kind of in the middle and got a Smart car. The only problem with them is they don't do well on snow and ice covered roads. They are small and lightweight. But I get 50 MPG with it and an 8 gallon gas tank actually gives me a decent driving range.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Norway is not a socialist country.
- Norway is the size of California
- Norway artifically makes ICE cars more expensive and subsidizes EVs with oil money yet people still have trouble finding chargers. They are non-existant in the mountains.
- Norway never goes below -3C
- All of Norway is 1619 km long. We have a completely ice road in Canada that is 750km by comparison.
Norway is basically the perfect place for these cars.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
> But this is entirely offset by Norway being one of the biggest net contributors to CO2 emissions world wide through their oil exports.
Oil is a fungible commodity. If Norway wasn't supplying it, someone else would be (or we'd be burning more natural gas to make up the balance)... so CO2 would not be significantly impacted if they weren't exporting it.
But they are moving away from burning it themselves, which is a net positive. They are also demonstrating viability of the technology, while establishing a market that both advances development and reduces cost of that technology. This is all good news.
=Smidge=
Note that TFA conveniently ignores sales of fossil fueled cars that were purchased new in other parts of Europe and imported as used (cars represent a large share of Norway's imports). Electric cars are still a small percentage of the total number of vehicles.
Norway is a massive oil exporter. Every drop of oil they don't burn in cars they export as oil instead. Norway moving to electric cars does nothing at all to reduce the overall problem because they just export the difference.
The demand in oil won't go up over-seas because Norway is exporting a larger % of what they earn. In fact as electric cars are beginning to take a larger share of the market in many places, and power stations switch from using oil, the demand for oil will decrease. It won't go away completely any time soon- but demand for oil is going to drop- and production of oil will drop in many places too- to keep the prices from free falling.
Oil is slowly fading away.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
That is an even better thing. They used the gains from their country for the good of the people, instead of for a few individuales that own shares in the company.
Can you imagine that instead of the oil barons in Texas, they would have put that money into use for the people, to be used by the people? Or instead of the coalmine owners, used that money to re-educate the people now their jobs became useless.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
get around corners better, Erm, no? Why would they?
break faster. Erm, no? Why would they?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And they burn their garbage for energy.
Well, gee, when the idea of burning garbage for energy was promoted in the film "Back to the Future" everybody seemed to like it.
And I, for one, would have more of an incentive to take out the garbage every week, if my car could run on it.
I bet if my city was surrounded by waterfalls instead of even more people, we could do that too. But then again, we'd probably be a lake. ;)
Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër ?
See the løveli lakes
The wøndërful telephøne system
And mäni interesting furry animals
Including the majestik møøse
A Møøse once bit my sister...
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Driver further, get around corners better, break faster.
WRONG! The only part of that, that is true (for now) is the Drive further!
Electric cars handle better than ICE. They accelerate faster, CORNER FASTER, can tow more and how they break is entirely dependent car-by-car and often depends on the type of breaks used and the weight of the car. Some electric vehicles are heavier- but electric vehicles also can capture energy from breaking whereas ICE lose the breaking energy as heat.
Electric cars are superior to ICE for everything except for range on a given charge.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Even just electrolysis+fuel cell with pure hydrogen has a 40% round trip efficiency, ... high end systems obviously reaching over 90%.
No, depending how you do it it is between 65% and 70%
No idea where this misconception that fuel cells or electrolysis is inefficient comes from. Must be a 1970s school myth which hold up till today.
If you do it at home with a simple battery and two cables going into water you already are around 70% efficiency ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Every drop of oil not burned in Norway is a drop that might not be burned at all: if not used as fuel, it could instead be used in plastics, lubricants, or petrochemicals.
How do you figure corner faster? The weight of the battery pulls them off the track.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I have no problem to rent a car if I need something else for a single trip. I also rent a van if I have to transport more than my car can carry.
People who live in cold climates are screwed. Eventually only EVs will be available and we'll have to pull gas heated battery trailers around I guess. There will be three ICEs on the market and they will all suck. I'm realizing there aren't really that many of us.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Yeah I have a big problem with renting. I specifically purchased a vehicle that I could drive places and not rent. Don't like all the "conditions" they make for you, and I feel way more comfortable in my own vehicle.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
BkWh must use some new metric prefix I've never encountered.
Better title: "Over 50% of the new vehicle sales in Norway were Tesla"
Relevant chart by maker: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tm... ...
Telsa 50.6%
VW 9.4%
"And they don't have a big population either. "
You mean that this way you can see that you don't need half a billion people paying exorbitant taxes to do it if even a small socialist EU country can do it?
"This thread has remained surprisingly civil somehow. Even our resident oil barons have provided clear ideas in a polite manner. Are the trolls all asleep still? Reminds me of /. posts pre-2016. I miss those."
You should have been here the last millennium.
Those were the days.
There were almost a dozen people who actually read the summary and even 1 or 2 times somebody actually read TFA!
Yes, that and the fact that they can afford all of these huge expenditures in infrastructure and subsidies because they became rich through oil.
No, a number of other countries can afford these measures too without access to huge oil profits. The idea is to accelerate the adoption of an emerging and superior new technology. On the other side of the coin the US for example can afford to subsidise its oil industry, not sure why that is necessary since the US oil industry would be profitable without them but there you go. The US government is of the opinion that oil companies are in such dire need of subsidies because they were already making altogether too much profit without them.
Just a reminder about the old joke, that in Europe, 100 miles is a long distance, and in America, 100 years is a long time.
I have nothing bad to say about all-electric cars. But a 300-mile range will not even get to my parents' houses. That's why i can't buy one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Brazillions of kilowatthours.
Ezekiel 23:20
It's fun to read the comments and watch the haters who have been convinced for years that EV's have no future continue to try and twist themselves in knots because reality refuses to conform to their delusions.
No, depending how you do it it is between 65% and 70%
Between 65% and 70% would necessitate both the electrolyser and the fuel cell to be on average 82% efficient. This is simply not happening with existing technology. Practical fuel cells reach 50%-60% efficiency. Meanwhile, practical electrolyzers need around 45 kWh per kg of generated hydrogen, so they're around 70%-75% efficient. So the overall roundtrip from electricity to hydrogen to electricity is between 35%-45% for pure hydrogen.
high end systems obviously reaching over 90%.
I'm not even going to comment on that.
Ezekiel 23:20
That is an even better thing. They used the gains from their country for the good of the people, instead of for a few individuales that own shares in the company.
Can you imagine that instead of the oil barons in Texas, they would have put that money into use for the people, to be used by the people? Or instead of the coalmine owners, used that money to re-educate the people now their jobs became useless.
Well they whatever the Noggies put their Oil dollars into it wasn't the road network. Norway's road network sucks ass considering the amount of oil dollars they have and road tolls they collect. My advice to anybody driving anywhere in Norway North of Trondheim is to drive as close to your destination as you can inside Sweden and then pop over the border into Norway as needed. The Swedish roads are better, the max speed is between 30-50 kph higher, the average speed is between 40 and 60 kph higher and there are hardly any road tolls. The interesting thing is that if you plot a route from Lofoten to Oslo all of the alternative routes are through Sweden. The longest Swedish route is 23 hours of driving, as opposed to 21 hours if you go through Norway despite the Swedish route being over 200 km longer and taking you all the way to the Baltic coast. Realistically, because the Swedes allow you to drive at 100-120 kph, you can overtake slow moving trucks on Swedish roads which you often can't in Norway due to the roads being single lane and you are not constantly on pins and needles about speed cameras and a draconian speeding fine, you'll probably be faster going through Sweden.
It certainly does. The average daily North American commute is well below the maximum range of most charged EVs. But we'll hear all kinds of stories about how the majority of North Americans own cabins in the woods, or something.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I don't think you have really "tested" an EV unless you have lived with it for a month in -30C weather.
Perhaps not but where I live -30C (-22F) is a fairly routine occurrence and I drive an EV in such weather. I'm pretty sure the weather in Norway is at least as cold if not worse. It's certainly further north by a substantial distance.
I'd rather spend the money on something else... although if I COULD get any car I wanted and money wasn't an issue- it'd be the Rivian Truck.
Only style critique I have of the Rivian trucks is those headlights are UGLY. I have no idea why they thought that was a good look. Maybe they work great but they look like shit. Functionally it seems like a good truck presuming the build quality and interior functions are up to par.
There's a nice pipe dream.
Every drop of oil Norway pumps is burned. That's the world we live in. Doesn't matter whether it's burned domestically or elsewhere, it will be burned. Norway could pump less oil, but someone else would just pump more.
Feelgood measures are nice and all, but they don't actually matter. Reducing oil consumption in China and India as those economies emerge is all that really matters. That's the real world you actually live in, sorry it's less pleasant than your fantasy world.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The main page link to here is broken.
Anyway, I would like to see a large-scale anysis of pollution -- The ability to have better scrubbers in power plants, or renewable energy plants better yet, than on cars.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Couldn't even find it in the actual document.
82% * 75% is already 64% ...
I think no further comment is needed ....
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In terms of the last two resources/population is the important statistic not either two. The USA has a large population but larger natural resources too. It might have a similar resources/population quotient (although perhaps a different mix of resources, e.g. Norway not known for its large maize crop).
Whine? I am not complaining. I am quite in favor of subidizing EVs to accellerate their adoption.
82% * 75% is already 64% ...
And where do you get those 82% and 75% when in reality you're offered equipment with 75% and 50%? :-p 75% * 50% = 37.5%.
Ezekiel 23:20
It was nice to see Tesla as #1 EV there. In addition, even better is that ICE sales are dropping there, while EVs continue to rise. With the coming increase in models as well as production, norway, in fact, most of the western nations, will likely have 50+% of their new car sales be EVs by end of 2022/3. That is 4 years away. With EV prices continuing to drop and Super Chargers going in all over, 4 years will be all that is needed.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So first you spend more on an electric car, and then you get to rent vehicles you need for "normal" tasks like a road trip, going camping, weekend trip, visiting family for the holidays, going to the nice movie theater almost two hours away, etc etc. First they need large pickup and SUV EVs, which we don't have. Then they need a refueling stop that is close to as fast as ICE use. Then they'll need a better/cheaper battery replacement. Even then, you aren't saving much money, and it's been proven it's better for the environment to buy a used car then a new one.
Weight. EVs weigh more than ICE cars. We've also seen that Tesla's can't even make it around the race track without issues like overheating.
Tell that to the Teslas that can't even make it around the track.
>Every drop of oil Norway pumps is burned. That's the world we live in. Doesn't matter whether it's burned domestically or elsewhere, it will be burned. Norway could pump less oil, but someone else would just pump more.
You're correct in this statement.
> Reducing oil consumption in China and India as those economies emerge is all that really matters.
You are incorrect in this one. Every drop not burned is a drop that's not burned, and it doesn't matter who is the first to cut back.
And for the record, China has been doing more than most countries to curtail their reliance on fossil fuels... not for environmental reasons, but because they understand that it's politically and economically advantageous to not rely on an energy source they have to import, and thus have no control over, and which will only get more expensive as time goes on.
=Smidge=
You gave the numbers ... ... why would a fuel cell only be 50% efficient?
No idea why you suddenly drop them to 75% and 50%
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You seem to be somewhat confused. I first gave you the HYPOTHETICAL numbers that you'd NEED to reach your alleged "between 65% and 70%" of round-trip efficiency, namely around 82% for both (or a geometric average), since 82% * 82% = ~67%.
THEN I cited REAL-WORLD figures, which are around 45 kWh to synthesize 1 kg of hydrogen - around 74% efficiency considering hydrogen's LLV for electrolysis, and 44%-57% efficiency from hydrogen's LLV to electricity in a REAL-WORLD fuel cell. That's a REAL-WORLD round-trip efficiency of around 32%-42%.
I did not "suddenly drop" anything, the efficiencies are still the same. I've taken fuel cell system efficiencies from PEM Fuel Cells: Theory And Practice, 2nd Ed., Table 9-7 on page 367, and electrolyzer power use from the energy.gov page I linked above.
Ezekiel 23:20
"Every drop of oil Norway pumps is burned." - can you provide a link to that, it'll make an interesting read.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
If this thread proved one thing, it's that no one really knows what the weather in Norway is. I'm going to go out on a limb and say more people have EVs where the weather rarely gets cold than where it gets very cold.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You are incorrect in this one. Every drop not burned is a drop that's not burned, and it doesn't matter who is the first to cut back.
The commodities market is worldwide. The price controls the amount burned. When one person burns less, the price falls and another burns more.
Now, if Norway pumped less oil that might have an effect. Likely not this decade, as we have a surfeit of production, but there have been times in the past where supply was constrained, and one producer making less wasn't an excuse for another to make more.
And for the record, China has been doing more than most countries to curtail their reliance on fossil fuels... not for environmental reasons, but because they understand that it's politically and economically advantageous to not rely on an energy source they have to import, and thus have no control over, and which will only get more expensive as time goes on.
Just a reminder: never believe anything the Chinese government says about anything.
Sure, neither India nor China want to be the bitch of the oil producing countries. Doesn't mean there's a lot they can do about it, but the extent that they do build a less oil-dependent infrastructure is the future of carbon emission. Maybe they'll do great, maybe they won't, but it's all about them and they don't care at all about global warming. It may end well due to other political considerations, though, or some technological breakthrough.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What other end destination do you see? Generally, oil-based lubricants are eventually burned as bunker fuel. Do you think plastic represents permanent sequestration of carbon? Do you think it's a non-trivial percentage of oil use?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.