This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Norway Shows the World How to Achieve Electric Car Dominance

image credit: ​​​​​​​Image by Free-Photos from Pixabay
Schalk Cloete's picture
Research Scientist Independent

My work on the Energy Collective is focused on the great 21st century sustainability challenge: quadrupling the size of the global economy, while reducing CO2 emissions to zero. I seek to...

  • Member since 2018
  • 1,013 items added with 414,307 views
  • Jun 21, 2021

I love living in Norway. It’s a beautiful country with nothing other than the weather to complain about. But this Nordic dream comes with a sizable oil stain; a foundation built on 50 years of lucrative hydrocarbon exports.

From official data, I estimate that Norway has sold fossil fuels amounting to roughly 44 billion barrels of oil equivalent – a CO2 legacy in the vicinity of 15 gigatons. Norwegian production costs are attractively low, so we can reasonably assume a profit of $23/barrel to reach a cool $1 trillion in historical cumulative hydrocarbon profit (resource rent, to be more precise).

Unlike many other oil nations, Norway has wisely invested a sizable portion of these profits: $360 billion (roughly a third of the historical oil and gas windfall). Investment returns have been stellar, and Norway now sits on an oil fund worth almost $1.3 trillion.

For a country with only 5.3 million people, this is a stupendous amount of money. Think about it this way: Total US Federal tax revenues amount to 16% of GDP. For Norway, a below-average year with a 5% return on the fund’s investments will yield that same 16% of GDP in passive income! On top of that comes ongoing oil and gas rents of about 7% of GDP.

Screenshot from the Norwegian Oil Fund website (20.05.2021) showing the fund development in billions of $

So, it’s not surprising that Norway experiences a little bit of pressure to do something real about climate change. And over the last decade, electric cars emerged as Norway’s shining climate light:

Historical development of electric car market share in Norway (data)

As shown above, battery-electric cars currently claim more than half of all new car sales in Norway, easily more than 10 times the global average. This article will analyze the secret sauce behind this amazing growth.

BEV vs. PHEV vs. HEV

There are three mainstream ways in which electric vehicles are used to reduce emissions in the transportation sector today:

  • Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) that draw power from a large battery pack charged with grid electricity
  • Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that have a smaller battery pack and can switch to an internal combustion engine when needed
  • Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) that use a small battery and electric motor to optimize efficiency by allowing the internal combustion engine to run under ideal operating conditions more often

In this comparison, we’ll blindly follow the market into Jevons’ paradox and focus on SUVs: the Volkswagen ID4 (BEV), the Toyota RAV4 Prime (PHEV), and the Toyota RAV4 hybrid (HEV).

All three SUVs are essentially the same size and come equipped with all-wheel drive. Here are some other important specs (US pricing and efficiency):

If you look at these stats from a technology-neutral perspective, the RAV4 is the clear winner. But that’s before incentives…

The Benefits of Owning a BEV in Norway

First, it's important to establish that Norway does not subsidize BEVs. Instead, BEVs can avoid almost all the taxes and fees levied on regular vehicles. However, the effect on government finances is the same whether BEVs are incentivized via subsidies (higher expenses) or tax exemptions (lower income). Norway needs high taxes across the economy to finance public spending amounting to more than half of GDP, so large BEV tax exemptions leave a sizable hole in government budgets.

OK, let’s now unpack the incentives available to BEV buyers in Norway. To start, here are the current prices of these three models in Norway compared to the US prices listed above:

Already, the incentives are clearly visible. Whereas the ID4 is the most expensive of the three in the US, it’s the cheapest in Norway. Relative to the US, the ID4 is 12% more expensive in Norway, while the RAV4 hybrid is fully 76% more expensive.

These large differences arise because electric cars are exempt from two big up-front taxes: 25% VAT and a large additional tax dependent on the weight and CO2 emissions of the vehicle.

The RAV4 Prime skips the large additional tax due to its low CO2 emissions, a substantial benefit driving PHEV sales in Norway. Given this benefit, it looks like Toyota enjoys a big mark-up on the Prime, thanks to its status as the top-selling vehicle in Norway so far this year.

In addition, electric cars benefit from several running-cost incentives. First, Norway’s gasoline taxes are among the highest in the world, whereas electricity taxes are very low. The resulting fuel costs look like this:

Fuel cost calculated for 15,000 km of driving per year. For the ID4, it is assumed that 90% of charging happens at home at 1 NOK/kWh and 10% at fast chargers at 3 NOK/kWh. For the RAV4 Prime, it is assumed that 60% of all driving is electric and all charging is done at home.

As shown, the actual cost of fuel is similar between our three SUVs. This is something that all too few people realize: When taxed equally, BEVs offer little fuel cost savings relative to HEVs. In fact, if Norway were to sell gasoline close to the price of production (like electricity), hybrids may be cheaper to fuel.

Next, BEVs enjoy considerably lower tolls and parking fees. In addition, there is an annual insurance tax that is also lower for BEVs. Here’s the graph:

There are also other perks like driving in bus lanes and getting slightly lower loan interest rates. For the sake of comparison, we will assume $500 of value per year for bus lane driving (about $1 per trip) and $100 per year in lower interest. When everything is tallied up over a 5-year ownership period, it looks like this:

The small fees paid by the ID4 are essentially canceled out by the other BEV benefits. In total, the RAV4 Prime pays $23,300 more in taxes, whereas the RAV4 hybrid pays $36,500 more. Put another way, with all the taxes and other fees on the RAV4 in Norway, one could buy a whole extra RAV4 in the US.

CO2 Avoidance Costs

The best thing about BEVs in Norway is that electricity comes almost completely from clean hydropower. This means that BEV emissions relative to conventional cars come only from battery manufacturing.

10-year lifecycle emissions of mid-size cars from the IEA EV Outlook 2020

From the above graph, a BEV like the ID4 with an 80 kWh battery will avoid about 15 tons of CO2 relative to an HEV when electricity emits no CO2 (zero well-to-tank fuel cycle emissions for the BEV). Relative to a PHEV, the saving is about 6 tons of CO2.

Hence, in total, the CO2 avoidance cost of incentivizing people to buy the ID4 in Norway is $36,500/15 = $2400/ton relative to the RAV4 and $23,300/6 = $3900/ton relative to the RAV4 Prime.

For perspective, each barrel of oil that Norway sells to help finance these large tax breaks emits about 0.43 tons of CO2 upon use. Making the $2400 required to avoid one ton of CO2 with the ID4 at the previously assumed resource rent of $23/barrel requires the sale of 104 barrels (45 tons of CO2). Relative to the RAV4 Prime, it comes to 73 tons of oil CO2 per ton of CO2 avoided. These numbers reveal the Norwegian BEV revolution to be little more than a band-aid on a 50-year oil legacy.

What Does This Mean?

To be honest, I'm not sure. Initially, extreme Norwegian BEV incentives made some sense to help a nascent industry get to its feet. But the share of Norwegian BEV sales relative to the rest of the world is no longer significant.

Maybe it’s about national pride. Norway would like to be one of the first countries to reach net-zero. But the country emits a mere 0.1% of global CO2, with only a third of this tiny fraction coming from transportation. Of far greater importance is the combustion of Norway’s oil and gas exports, which emits about 15x more CO2 than Norway emits locally. But we prefer not to talk about that.

Perhaps the most reasonable explanation is that Norway wants to sponsor the world's first large-scale experiment in exclusively electric mobility. So, what have we learned from this multi-billion-dollar-a-year experiment so far? As far as I can determine, there are three primary findings:

  1. Reaching a majority share of BEVs requires incentives that few other countries will be able to afford and avoids CO2 at a massive cost (even when electricity is 100% renewable).
  2. BEV incentives that keep rising with the vehicle price cause a large increase in the sales of 2.5-ton luxury SUVs.
  3. With enough incentives and hydropower, the dominant role of the car in city transportation systems can be preserved indefinitely, even in a carbon-constrained world.

The first finding is useful (although it is blatantly ignored at present), whereas the second and third are rather disappointing. Massive incentives for rich people to import luxury cars is one of the most frustrating aspects of this BEV expansion. Furthermore, an over-dependence on personal cars for city driving (the sweet spot for BEVs) is one of the most wasteful and unhealthy elements of our society.

But BEVs Will Soon Be Super Cheap!

Of course, the big argument for BEVs is that they will soon be so cheap that no one will want to buy a gasoline car anymore. Well, battery pack prices are currently around $140/kWh. If they halve again, they will lop $6500 off the price of the ID4 (including a 20% profit margin) — a mere 18% of the huge incentive the ID4 enjoys relative to the RAV4 in Norway.

The fact is that Norwegians are still buying PHEVs, HEVs, and regular gasoline and diesel cars despite incentives making BEVs a much cheaper option. For example, the ID4 is $15000–19100 cheaper over a 5-year ownership period (assuming that depreciation, insurance, and interest amount to 70% of the purchase cost) than the RAV4 models. Even for affluent Norwegians, that’s a sizable chunk of disposable income.

The breakdown of Norwegian car sales for the first four months of 2021 (source)

As far as I can tell, there are currently about 50 different BEV and 50 different PHEV models for sale in Norway, but only about 10 HEV models. Thus, when we look at availability-adjusted sales, BEVs are about twice as popular as PHEVs and similarly popular to HEVs.

This shows how highly car owners value freedom. Despite bigger battery packs and more fast chargers, the freedom offered by BEVs remains limited. The RAV4 hybrid has 500–600 miles of range that can be replenished in 5 minutes anywhere. But the ID4 is a little more complicated:

  • It is rated at 260 miles of range in mixed driving. City-oriented use should yield an even greater range.
  • For highway driving, however, the range may fall to 190 miles.
  • If it’s around freezing point, you’re looking at 160 miles. Very cold (or very hot) days can be even worse.
  • After some years with battery degradation, perhaps this goes down to about 140 miles.
  • On a road trip, it’s too risky to go all the way to the limit, so you might want to drive only about 120 miles on a cold or hot day before recharging.
  • When recharging, you can reach 80% in a reasonable time, but getting a full charge could take too long, cutting the practical range even further.
  • If advanced driver-assistance tech one day safely increases highway speed limits, these restrictions will become even more severe.

Clearly, achieving the kind of freedom offered by gasoline will require a much larger battery pack than the ID4 has onboard (in conjunction with much faster chargers). This demand for ever-larger batteries and faster chargers will consume most of the remaining battery cost declines.

And in parallel, HEVs still have plenty of room for further cost reductions and efficiency and performance gains, creating increasingly stiff competition.


BEVs are great. They’re fun to drive, quiet, and free from tailpipe emissions. As a second family car for commuting or navigating the urban jungle, they make a compelling case, even without incentives. They’re also attractive to luxury/performance shoppers, given the electric performance and modest cost of a large battery pack relative to an expensive luxury car.

For the rest of us, though, BEVs are only an option when we receive huge incentives, creating CO2 avoidance costs that dwarf most alternatives. For large developing markets like China and India, electric cars actually emit considerably more CO2 than hybrids (see the final graph in this article).

Even so, policymakers worldwide seem to have developed a BEV obsession, and Norway is still receiving more praise for its progressive BEV policies than critique for its carbon exports.

I find this deeply disappointing. If we want to be progressive about personal mobility, we should transition to living spaces designed for people instead of cars and boost highly efficient virtual mobility. Developments like this one should get much more attention than Elon Musk’s latest tweet.

If Norway wants to do genuine good for the world, how about going all-in on decarbonizing its hydrocarbon exports via blue hydrogen? Capturing and storing just 1% of the carbon currently exported will avoid almost 10x more CO2 than all 350000 electric cars on Norway's roads today. Such an initiative can trigger massive CO2 cuts by setting a new standard for other oil & gas exporters and, as a welcome bonus, it can be quite profitable in a world hungry for low-carbon fuels.

There are signs of these vastly more effective climate and societal actions gaining some momentum, but the pure green ideal of wind, solar, and BEVs still hogs the limelight (and the incentives).

Let’s hope that climate pragmatism prevails in the end.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Jun 21, 2021

Schalk, I had the pleasure of briefly visiting Bergen in 2019, and for the four days I  was in Norway I was told by natives it was the best weather they had had in over a year. So perhaps it's unfair, but the food, the weather, the people (and the largest sailing ship in the world) left me with a very favorable impression of your country.

We've been through this before, but I find CCS and blue hydrogen to be horribly expensive and impractical excuses for drilling for more oil. They make no financial sense, they will never be remotely practical in developing countries where they would be most needed. Worse, CCS is unverifiable - it makes lying far more profitable than being honest, with only a slim chance of being held accountable.

O/T, does the interest in molten salt reactors shown in the serial thriller Occupied have any basis in Norwegian politics? Powering its electrical grid with nuclear electricity would have the potential to make your country's energy emissions-free - then, it would just be a matter of plugging all of those holes in the North Sea.

Schalk Cloete's picture
Schalk Cloete on Jun 23, 2021

Indeed, it's a lovely country where almost everyone has everything they need. This creates a beautifully stable society, but we should be under no illusions about the fossil fuel foundation beneath this little Nordic utopia. 

Yes, our different views on CCS appear unreconcilable, so let's not spend more time on that. In terms of nuclear, Norway already has all the power it needs from hydro, so there is limited drive to get more carbon-free electricity. A moderate amount of wind is the exception because it is politically attractive and synergizes well with hydro. The big issue for Norway is continuing to profit from its hydrocarbon exports in a decarbonizing world. As the stats mentioned at the top of the article suggest, the stakes are high. For perspective, Norway exports about 16x more energy as oil and gas than it generates hydropower (which accounts for almost 100% of local electricity consumption).

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Jun 21, 2021

Maybe it’s about national pride. Norway would like to be one of the first countries to reach net-zero. 

This is the kind of modern 'Space Race' we need-- because the benefit of such competition isn't just the winner, but all who participate and all who then get the resultant solutions exported out to them

Schalk Cloete's picture
Schalk Cloete on Jun 23, 2021

Fair point, but an order of magnitude more beneficial space race that Norway could be participating in is the decarbonization of hydrocarbon exports. 

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Jun 22, 2021

Thanks for the interesting, easy to understand examination of Norwegian electric car success.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Jun 23, 2021

" about going all-in on decarbonizing its hydrocarbon exports via blue hydrogen?   Capturing and storing just 1% of the carbon currently exported..."

The BEV conclusions are disappointing.  

And the 1% figure reminded me that most of the world's fertilizer (which actually comprises about 2% of our fossil fuel market) is made without bothering to sequester the resulting CO2.

A quick look didn't turn-up much interest in adding CC&S to fertilizer production in Norway either.  Although Norway does seem to have fixated on the European attraction to hydrogen and ammonia made from renewable electricity. (Maybe that is a deliberate attempt to keep the spot-light off of their fossil fuel industry?)

Here is one proposed blue ammonia project in Norway that is supposed to be Europe's first large project. It is sized for 3000 tons of ammonia per day, which is about 780 MW of energy flow.  They are proposing to put the CO2 in an off-shore under-ground reservoir called Polaris (oil or fossil gas?).

The other low emissions Norwegian ammonia news seems to be green ammonia:

This article talks about a plan to produce green ammonia in Norway for low-CO2 shipping.

This article deals with Norwegian green hydrogen and ammonia, and adds the shocking detail that European green hydrogen rules currently allow use of normal grid power, so there is no need to deal with the problem of intermittency! (and apparently no need to product actual reductions in CO2 emissions).

So there is definitely room for Norway to take a leadership role here, but they seem to be going slowly.

Schalk Cloete's picture
Schalk Cloete on Jun 23, 2021

Yes, ammonia is an interesting vector for decarbonizing fossil fuel exports. So is steel (we looked at this in our recently submitted paper). There are also other options in the metallurgical and chemical sectors. These alternatives are key to overcome the challenges with hydrogen handling for international trade. 

It's good to see that blue ammonia project getting some traction. But yes, the political pull of green hydrogen is strong, even though it will always be much more costly than blue hydrogen from Norwegian gas. As the BEV case shows, Norway has more than enough oil money to deploy highly uneconomical solutions that look good to uninformed onlookers. 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Jun 30, 2021

Nathan, from your link:

"We’re convinced that this will be a facility for the future. It will have a very low carbon footprint with over 99 percent CO2 capture rate..."

It's nice that the developers of this facility are convinced it will have a CO2 capture rate of over 99 percent. How do they intend to convince investors? Why would anyone believe them if it's vastly more profitable to plant a few pipes in the ground, then let captured CO2 leak into the night air?

All products that use of hydrogen-from-methane as a feedstock share the same fatal flaw:

"Oil and gas companies are, after all, bad actors. For decades upon decades, they’ve been lying about climate change, fighting furiously against any regulation that would force them to internalize the costs of their pollution, and lobbying against clean energy policies at the federal and state level, especially through their trade associations and dark money groups. They are still doing all of those things today.

"Yes, they sell a product we need, for which there is demand. But that’s just the point: They are corporations driven by the profit motive to sell as much of their product as possible. Humanity’s long-term interests dictate using as little of their product as possible. The struggle against climate change is, in part, going to be a struggle against oil and gas companies. Sure, in theory, over time, they could evolve into pure carbon sequestration companies or renewable energy companies or pipeline services companies. But in this reality, now, they are multi-billion-dollar hydrocarbon companies.

"Anyone who ignores that basic political economy, who believes oil and gas companies will be good-faith partners in a climate-emergency effort, is indulging in a kind of willful naivete that is entirely too common in the carbon wonk community."

Could squeezing more oil out of the ground help fight climate change?

Jim Stack's picture
Jim Stack on Jun 23, 2021

Schalk, Thank you for an incite into the progress in Norway on oil production and plugin vehicles. You did not include the vehicle maintenance required on a HEV for Oil changes and transmission work etc.

    I didn't know Norway sold so much oil. That is a big black spot on their overall carbon foot print.

   You also did not mention Tesla with much greater range and ability in the cold. They are the true leader in all types of weather. Their new heat pump is very good in the cold. 

    When do you think the depleting oil will run out in Norway? Do they do Fracking to get the last few drops out ?

Schalk Cloete's picture
Schalk Cloete on Jun 23, 2021

HEVs actually have attractively low maintenance costs. The synergistic interactions of the ICE and electric motor and various other simplifications all contribute to low maintenance and high reliability. Here is an example of similar maintenance and insurance costs of the Prius and the Leaf

Tesla's winter range degradation (admittedly in quite mild winter conditions) seems to be quite similar to the competitors

Norway's oil production is in a gradual long-term decline, but it has ticked up in recent years due to production from a large new field. With the high oil price, Norway is set for a good year - I would not be surprised of oil & gas rents reach 10% of GDP in 2021. Don't worry, I'm sure Norway will never frack. 

Shraddha Nair's picture
Shraddha Nair on Jun 26, 2021

Wow, this was a long read but I got some insight into the EV system in Norway. And clearly yes, there is a huge scope of innovation around virtual mobility which needs to get more attention than Elon Musk's tweet!

Schalk Cloete's picture
Thank Schalk for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »