It’s common knowledge that Norway is the land of electric cars and that the country keeps breaking EV sales records with virtually no new fossil vehicle sales. But what’s really important is the effect those EVs are having on oil sales, which are in steep decline in the country as a result – and the same thing could happen elsewhere.
Norwegian statistics agency SSB released its latest numbers on motor fuel sales today, showing a whopping 9% decline in motor fuel sales year-over-year for the month of September.
This is a result of Norway’s world-leading EV sales, with over 90% of new vehicles in the country having some sort of plug and vanishingly few having no electrification at all. The country has exceeded its own high expectations, virtually ending fossil vehicle sales years ahead of schedule.
However, there are still fossil vehicles on the road from previous years that are continuing to pollute and use fossil fuels throughout their lifecycle. But as they age and are replaced almost solely with EVs, the vehicle fleet cycles out from fossil to electric. If it takes 10-15 years for the vehicle fleet to cycle out, then that means Norway would remove ~6-10% of fossil cars from the road every year, replace them with electric cars, and thus reduce motor fuel usage by a similar amount every year.
But this trend is nothing particularly new. While this big 9% drop is just a one-month snapshot, petrol/gasoline sales have been in decline for about two decades in the country, as diesel started to replace petrol in the mid-2000s. But diesel has also been in decline for the better part of a decade, as electricity has replaced it as a motor fuel.
To compare against other rapid declines, US coal usage has gone from a peak of 1,045 million tons in 2007 to 469 million tons in 2022, a decline of about 5% per year (and going from ~50% of the US electricity mix to ~20% now, and dropping). Many observers acknowledged, even near the beginning of this trend, that coal was a dead industry. Any subsequent attempts to expand it have been unserious political stunts that were doomed to fail from the start – everyone (with a brain) knows the industry is dead.
But in that context, Norway’s decline in motor fuel sales seems to be happening almost twice as fast on a percentage basis as the United States’ decline in coal use, at least according to today’s data point. And the long-term trend may accelerate as the country now has virtually no gas vehicle sales.
This is important because when we talk about electrifying the auto industry, the point is not just to get people into better cars with neat new technology. The point is to reduce oil consumption, such that carbon that belongs underground stays there – permanently.
This is vitally important because if we burned even a fraction of all the oil that is already discovered and owned by oil companies, the carbon released would cause catastrophic climate change. This was covered in Bill McKibben’s excellent 2012 article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math.”
The only way we can avoid this fate is through one of the more wonderful phrases in the English language: “stranded assets.” In this context, the phrase refers to oil reserves owned by oil companies which get written off of those companies’ books because they are uneconomical to extract and sell.
In short, oil companies need to lose money, and lots of them need to go bankrupt.
And while Norway is just one relatively small country, news like this shows how that could happen as EV sales (and better yet, even cleaner methods of transportation like e-bikes and public transit) grow rapidly worldwide.
Oil demand -> oil prices -> oil supply
There is an interplay between oil demand, oil prices, and oil supply that could lead to a death spiral for the oil industry.
Lately, oil prices have been quite high around the world, nearing the historic highs of the 2010s and late 70s. This spike has largely been driven by pandemic-related supply (and demand) disruptions, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and, as always, the decisions of Saudi Arabia (in this case, their decision to cut supply to buoy oil prices).
But looking back to the last peak, we can see another interesting thing: a giant drop in oil prices in the mid-2010s, which was driven by a “supply glut.” This supply glut was at least partially related to increased usage of hybrid and electric cars, which led to a relatively small decrease in oil demand. However, that small decrease meant that more oil was being pumped than used, which led prices to drop by about two-thirds in a matter of months.
The effect of oil prices on consumer demand is that as oil prices go up, usage (often) goes down, and interest in electric cars goes up. This stands to reason, as people start thinking about more efficient vehicles when the cost of fueling their vehicle becomes too much.
But the effect on supply is less popularly examined. In this case, low oil prices can actually be environmentally advantageous because it means that oil companies are less incentivized to explore new methods of extraction and that more expensive methods (such as tar sands extraction, which is also much more environmentally costly) become uneconomical.
If it costs more to extract the oil than the oil is worth, then the project won’t get started. And if the project doesn’t get started, then the oil stays in the ground to begin with, right where it belongs.
So, in a way, low oil prices can actually be better for the environment than high oil prices. This means fewer projects get started, and more projects and companies go bankrupt due to high costs and low profits.
And this is the spiral that we want to see. As the primary driver of oil demand (vehicles, specifically consumer vehicles) disappears, oil prices can drop because of this supply-demand imbalance. Then, there will be less reason for companies to extract oil in the first place, leading to the stranded assets we spoke of before.
Some regions with low cost of extraction might even prefer it this way and work to ensure this happens. The Middle East can extract oil for cheaper than anywhere else, so it could be to their benefit to put high-cost extraction methods out of business. Norway itself is an oil country (primarily for export, at this point) and has middling oil-extraction costs, but it may benefit in the short term from a shakeout of higher-cost countries. But ideally, Norway’s extraction would soon become uneconomical – and hopefully, so will Saudi Arabia’s.
The one danger of this path is that if oil demand does drop low enough, low oil prices could jeopardize consumer decision-making to move to cleaner options. Oil is subsidized to the tune of trillions of dollars worldwide per year based on unpriced external costs that all of us are paying on the back end – usually in the form of higher hospital bills or other environmental costs.
This could be solved by finally properly pricing oil globally, as Norway already rightly does. Norway’s realistic pricing for carbon pollution has helped to ensure that the true price of oil is reflected in consumer pricing, making it more apparent to consumers that fossil vehicles are not an economical option for society or their pocketbooks.
In contrast, the artificially low gasoline costs in the US (yes, US gasoline prices are still artificially low, even at today’s high prices) work to buoy consumer oil demand. Removing the ~$650 billion in implicit subsidies received by the fossil fuel industry in the US alone would help ensure that fair market conditions could prevail, and consumers would have a clear choice about what the better and cleaner option is.
And if we finally let the market work freely, after more than a century of both direct and implicit oil subsidies that have coddled this lying, deadly industry, we could finally see it spiral into the oblivion it deserves.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The Dodge Charger Daytona EV made headlines when it rolled out fake engine noises as a way to make the EV appeal to muscle car drivers. As it turns out, they weren’t the right sort of fake engine noises – and now Stellantis has to recall 8,000 of them for a fix.
What’s more, the recall’s “suspect period” reportedly begins on 30APR2024, when the first 2024 Dodge Charger Daytona was produced, and ends 18MAR2025 … when the last Charger EV was produced.
RECALL CHRONOLOGY
On April 17, 2025, the FCA US LLC (“FCA US”) Technical Safety and Regulatory Compliance (“TSRC”) organization opened an investigation into certain 2024–2025 model year Dodge Charger vehicles that may not emit exterior sound.
From April 17, 2025, through May 13, 2025, FCA US TSRC met with FCA US Engineering and the supplier to understand all potential failure modes associated with the issue. They also reviewed warranty data, field records, and customer assistance records to determine field occurrences.
On May 14, 2025, the FCA US TSRC organization determined that a vehicle build issue existed on certain vehicles related to a lack of EV exterior sound, potentially resulting in noncompliance with FMVSS No. 141.
Basically, if you have a Dodge Charger EV, expect to get a recall notice.
It just keeps getting funnier
My take on the Fratzonic Chambered Exhaust, via ChatGPT.
If you’re not familiar with the Charger Daytona EV’s “Fratzonic Chambered Exhaust,” it’s a system that employs a combination of digital sound synthesis and a physical tuning chamber (translation: a speaker) to produce a 126 decibel sound that approximately imitates a Hellcat Hemi V8 ICE. That’s loud enough to cause most people physical pain, according to Yale University – putting it somewhere between a loud rock concert and a passenger jet at takeoff.
While you could argue that such noises are part and parcel with powerful combustion, they’re completely irrelevant to an EV, and speak to a particular sort of infantile delusion of masculinity that I, frankly, have never been able to wrap my head around. Something akin to the, “Hey, look at me! I’m a big tough guy!” attention-whoring of a suburban Harley rider in a “Sons of Anarchy” novelty cut, without even enough courage to ride a motorcycle, you know?
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Is it an electric van or a truck? The Kia PV5 might be in a class of its own. Kia’s electric van was recently spotted charging in public with an open bed, and it looks like a real truck.
Kia’s electric van morphs into a truck with an open bed
The PV5 is the first of a series of electric vans as part of Kia’s new Platform Beyond Vehicle business (PBV). Kia claims the PBVs are more than vans, they are “total mobility solutions,” equipped with Hyundai’s advanced software.
Based on the flexible new EV platform, E-GMP.S, Kia has several new variants in the pipeline, including camper vans, refrigerated trucks, luxury “Prime” models for passenger use, and an open bed model.
Kia launched the PV5 Passenger and Cargo in the UK earlier this year for business and personal use. We knew more were coming, but now we are getting a look at a new variant in public.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Although we got a brief glimpse of it earlier this month driving by in Korea, Kia’s electric van was spotted charging in public with an open bed.
Kia PV5 electric van open bed variant (Source: HealerTV)
The folks at HealerTV found the PV5 variant with an open bed parked in Korea, offering us a good look from all angles.
From the front, it resembles the Passenger and Cargo variants, featuring slim vertical LED headlights. However, from the side, it’s an entirely different vehicle. The truck sits low to the ground, similar to the one captured driving earlier this month.
Kia PV5 open bed teaser (Source: Kia)
When you look at it from the back, you can’t even tell it’s the PV5. It looks like any other cargo truck with an open bed.
The PV5 open bed measures 5,000 mm in length, 1,900 mm in width, and 2,000 mm in height, with a wheelbase of 3,000 mm. Although Kia has yet to say how big the bed will be, the reporter mentions it doesn’t look that deep, but it’s wide enough to carry a good load.
Kia PV5 Cargo electric van (Source: Kia)
The open bed will be one of several PV5 variants that Kia plans to launch in Europe and Korea later this year, alongside the Passenger, Cargo, and Chassis Cab configurations.
In Europe, the PV5 Passenger is available with two battery pack options: 51.5 kWh or 71.2 kWh, providing WLTP ranges of 179 miles and 249 miles, respectively. The Cargo variant is rated with a WLTP range of 181 miles or 247 miles.
Kia PBV models (Source: Kia)
Kia will reveal battery specs closer to launch for the open bed variant, but claims it “has the longest driving range among compact commercial EVs in its class.”
In 2027, Kia will launch the larger PV7, followed by an even bigger PV9 in 2029. There’s also a smaller PV1 in the works, which is expected to arrive sometime next year or in 2027.
What do you think of Kia’s electric van? Will it be a game changer? With plenty of variants on the way, it has a good chance. Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
Senate Republicans are threatening to hike taxes on clean energy projects and abruptly phase out credits that have supported the industry’s expansion in the latest version of President Donald Trump‘s big spending bill.
The measures, if enacted, would jeopardize hundreds of thousands of construction jobs, hurt the electric grid, and potentially raise electricity prices for consumers, trade groups warn.
The Senate GOP released a draft of the massive domestic spending bill over the weekend that imposes a new tax on renewable energy projects if they source components from foreign entities of concern, which basically means China. The bill also phases out the two most important tax credits for wind and solar power projects that enter service after 2027.
Republicans are racing to pass Trump’s domestic spending legislation by a self-imposed Friday deadline. The Senate is voting Monday on amendments to the latest version of the bill.
The tax on wind and solar projects surprised the renewable energy industry and feels punitive, said John Hensley, senior vice president for market analysis at the American Clean Power Association. It would increase the industry’s burden by an estimated $4 billion to $7 billion, he said.
“At the end of the day, it’s a new tax in a package that is designed to reduce the tax burden of companies across the American economy,” Hensley said. The tax hits any wind and solar project that enters service after 2027 and exceeds certain thresholds for how many components are sourced from China.
This combined with the abrupt elimination of the investment tax credit and electricity production tax credit after 2027 threatens to eliminate 300 gigawatts of wind and solar projects over the next 10 years, which is equivalent to about $450 billion worth of infrastructure investment, Hensley said.
“It is going to take a huge chunk of the development pipeline and either eliminate it completely or certainly push it down the road,” Hensley said. This will increase electricity prices for consumers and potentially strain the electric grid, he said.
The construction industry has warned that nearly 2 million jobs in the building trades are at risk if the energy tax credits are terminated and other measures in budget bill are implemented. Those credits have supported a boom in clean power installations and clean technology manufacturing.
“If enacted, this stands to be the biggest job-killing bill in the history of this country,” said Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, in a statement. “Simply put, it is the equivalent of terminating more than 1,000 Keystone XL pipeline projects.”
The Senate legislation is moving toward a “worst case outcome for solar and wind,” Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco told clients in a Sunday note.
Trump’s former advisor Elon Musk slammed the Senate legislation over the weekend.
“The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,” The Tesla CEO posted on X. “Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.”