← Back to context

Comment by walthamstow

5 days ago

Norway is a very special case in that it has massive hydro energy resources and nobody lives there.

Norway has roughly the population of the average US state. So I guess no-one really lives in the USA.

And massive oil resources. As a result of this, one of the wealthiest sovereign wealth funds on the planet, which they manage well and for the good of the country.

Their hydro energy company is an aluminum company company, they have so much slack power they export it refining bauxite.

It is worth repeating solar panels covering an area about the size of NH generate enough power to supply all current entire US energy needs.

There must be more to it than this, or we'd have fantastic EV uptake here in New Zealand (we don't - EVs currently only have a 6% market share).

  • As other siblings have said, it's also very rich and offers mega tax breaks for EVs.

    Out of interest, do you mean 6% of cars on the road of 6% of new cars sold last year?

    • I mean sales, specifically new car pure EV sales for 2025. We are only at 3% EVs on the road.

      I think for much of the population a brand new EV is simply too expensive.

      8 replies →

  • nz politicians figured out where the tap is to control uptake.. in the name of RUC right now it's tuned so non-plugin hybrid is cheapest, this separates out the price sensitive crowd...

  • The funny part is, given the geographic proximity and free trade relationship with China, New Zealand could become EV-dominant pretty much as quickly as they want. And as the infrastructure allows - is that a limiting factor?

    Without tariffs, the excellent and inexpensive Chinese electric cars might be an attractive option.

> massive hydro energy resources

That is irrelevant unless Norway has unused capacity.

If a country adds electric cars using more electric power, then what really matters is how that extra power is generated.

It gets weird in Europe because adding extra load in Norway could easily mean that Poland does more generation using coal.

I'm in New Zealand where the government owned generators are preventing solar installations. One example was via an unobvious regulation that the installation had to handle massively overengineered earthquake rules. Meanwhile we use coal or imported gas when the isn't enough rain for our hydro. And we waste about 10% of our total capacity exporting (via one aluminium plant).

  • Going all electric with cars would add ~10-15% of electric demand. That's a bit, but not really a deal breaker, and something Norway would easily be able to offset by adding more wind turbines.

    • I tried to find info on whether Norway is adding green generation capacity. Closest answer I got is that they have stopped adding onshore wind and solar is still negligible.

> hydro energy resources

What is a hydro energy resource, a river? Don't lots of countries have rivers?

(If we're talking about hydroelectric power plants they've chosen to build, that's not exactly a resource -- and other countries could choose to build those too, right?)

  • Not just a river, a river plus either an elevation drop or a drownable valley.

    A river winding along a flat plain is not a hydro energy resource. A river in the same valley as your capital city is not a hydro energy resource.

  • Building hydro energy requires a very specific geography. You can't just take any river and turn it into an efficient hydroplant.

  • You need both the right geography and a lack of either people or democracy in the place you want to build it. That rules out new large hydro projects in most of Europe.

  • Norway has really a lots of rivers with lots of potential energy of the water, since it comes from the mountains at high altitude (Fjords).

    Some big slow moving river in a flat land on the other hand is not helping you here.