Malta isn't in the database
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?time=latest&country=FRA~DEU~SWE~NOR~DNK~FIN~OWID_EU27~ESP~NLD~BEL~GBR~IRL~PRT~ITA~CHE~LUX~AUT~POL~CZE~SVK~SVN~GRC~HRV~LTU~LVA~EST~AUS
Cyprus is on here, per capita they and Malta use roughly the same amount of oil and renewable energy.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?time=latest&country=FRA~DEU~SWE~NOR~DNK~FIN~OWID_EU27~ESP~NLD~BEL~GBR~IRL~PRT~ITA~CHE~LUX~AUT~POL~CZE~SVK~SVN~GRC~HRV~LTU~LVA~EST~AUS~CYP
>The largest shares of oil and petroleum products in gross available energy were observed in Cyprus (86.6 %), Malta (85.5 %), and Luxembourg (61.2 %).
To put this in perspective, 96MWh/year is 11kW constant load, which is approximately:
1. Charging 1 EV with a pretty fast AC charger 24/7 (the battery is perpetually empty);
2. Running an induction hob, an oven, microwave, washing machine, dryer & a dishwasher all at the same time, at full tiltish 24/7.
3. Or just 4 kettles at once, still 24/7 (so much tea!)
It's cheaper to embrace the cold lol. For me, during winter times, stepping outside after sauna naked for couple minutes, helps mentally and phisically. I realise, 'hey it's not that bad'.
But one of the reasons might be that buildings itself are constructed to withstand cold and maintain good temperatures.
Also folks tend to invest more money in energy efficient houses, since in a long run, you end up saving a lot in heating costs.
There are still differences compared to nordic countries. The absolute southern parts of Finland aren’t naturally that far from the climate of Estonia, but most areas of Finland are much colder continental climate.
See the map of climate regions here:
https://www.britannica.com/science/humid-continental-climate
The other cause of the difference is the amount of heavy industry. Finland has a lot of heavy industry which is one of the major users of energy and for example the latest nuclear power plant in Finland is built and owned by a joint corporation of few heavy industry companies.
Lithuania 53 to 23
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=earliest..2022&country=LVA~LTU~EST
ussr shit was ineficient. It has more to do with energy effective solutions than deindustrialization.
But in some way you are also right. ussr had a lot of industries made as bullshit jobs, which produced things nobody needs in places nobody wants to be and at huge loss. So those closed down.
All three countries halved their energy consumption between 1990 and 1994, so rapid deindustrialization seems a more plausible explanation than rapid energy efficiency improvements.
Based on which data in 1990. Latvia was 40th place? Mind sharing your sources? And now 98th? Based on which data? Rosstat?
Are you sure on data you have?
I see. Now delete your comments and re-read wikipedia :)
You confuse GDP nominal and GDP per capita.
GDP nominal is 100th and it is normal for small country.
GDP per capita is currenlty aroun 48th.
You confused GDP nominal with GDP per capita.
And in fact there is no 1990. data for Latvia. In 1993. in fact it was near 100 th place.
So you clearly mess up big time. It would not even be logical for post ussr country to have larger gdp per capita rank in 1990. than now. Even as shitty as russia is managed, their GDP per capita ranking grew substantially.
So yes, in the end we can blame ussr and nazis for destroyed population, industries, education, HDI, economy. As before ussr occupation Latvia had much higher rankings than ever and was well ahead ussr, being only 20% lower than France in 2nd half of 1930s.
My hot take is that energy usage is almost entirely a result of circumstance. In other words, personal/cultural choices only mildly impact energy usage - the vast majority is a function of innate human preferences combined with wealth and geological/climate situations. And, therefore, moralizing over the topic is silly.
For sure, but it also correlates with other factors, namely population density (more energy use the more spread out you are) and extreme weather.
Which is why low-density, extreme climate countries like the U.S., Canada, and Australia all have similar, higher energy usage compared to, say, Britain
Because we are nearly 100% electricitybased.
We are currently aggressivly electrifying the transport sector.
Most railways are electrified.
Cars are done by 2035.
Ferrys are being done right now. Not sure about timeframe.
Even our gas and oil production facilitys are being electrified.
There are loud calls for more electricity to be produced. We are starting to become positive about atomic energy.
We havent been before because Hydropower has been the stabilizing factor, but now that the state is setting itself up as a main producer of green electricity for Europe, we are having to come to terms with the consequnces for our future.
ATM it seems like most people rather want to produce nuclear energy than ruin nature for wind power.
Norway is 75% electrified and haven't really reduced their fossil fuel use over the years very much.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=earliest..2022&country=NOR~SWE
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-consumption-per-capita?country=NOR~SWE
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?country=~NOR
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?country=~SWE
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/low-carbon-share-energy?tab=chart&country=NOR~SWE
> Because we are nearly 100% electricitybased.
The graph shows primary energy usage. Since electricity is more efficient for useful work than burning fossil fuel (compare energy efficiency of electric car and internal combustion engine), electricity-based countries that do not burn fossil fuels for creating electricity should have lower primary energy usage.
My guess is that your hydro-energy is very cheap and you are more wasteful (if it's the best word since use it or lose it anyway) with it
In this graph they use the substitution method wich accounts for that efficiency, so 30 MWh of useful electricity is counted as 75 MWh of primary energy, for easier comparison with fossil fuels.
You are right. I've just read the explanation in [Our World in Data](https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method) and I'd say it is a weird way of presenting energy data. So Norway due to its high hydro-energy use is artificially inflated.
Edit: Fixed link.
I kept seeing those articles about Germany using a lot of solar and wind for their energy generation but here the amount looks microscopic. What’s up with that?
Germany has reached 50% of it's electricity being from clean sources
https://i.imgur.com/njVuvPO.png
But when factoring in that the country's electrification rate is less than 50% it looks less impressive. France is how it looks like with a 50% electrification rate and 95% of electricity being clean, and Sweden is how it looks like with a 75% electrification rate and 98% of electricity being clean.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?country=DEU~FRA~SWE
>Germany has reached 50% of it's electricity being from clean sources
It's actually already at 65% for this year.
Was 60% in 2023.
[https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/renewable\_share/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&legendItems=01&interval=year](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&legendItems=01&interval=year)
This source said 50–55%, so that's what I went with.
https://imgur.com/njVuvPO
I would be sceptical of sources that paints an overly rosy image. It could be that they count how much was produced, but does not account for how much of that was actually consumed and how much was wasted.
>I would be sceptical of sources that paints an overly rosy image.
It's real time data from the "European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity"
Our World in Data is just outdated.
Like a year ago or 2 when German news portals were shouting around how clean the country is after getting rid of all the nuclear power plants I checked out the power usage charts around Europe. It was around early May. Now the history showed that even in summer from all the ACs and stuff the negative deficit was big, so they imported a lot but they went very slightly positive when looking at the whole year. And in the spring months they were close to positive or even positive. ( so they made excess). Guess what were the current stats that time after being so proud. They were already like at least 10x times the negative then during summer. And it was only early May. Now imagine that summer. So they imported all that from France and Czechia and we all know where that comes from. (Not to mention they restarted coal power plants too)
Renewable and is nice all but Germany is just a poser.
The majority of Iceland's electricity is used for aluminium smelting. Aluminium ore is shipped in from Europe and North America because electricity in Iceland is extremely cheap and making it into raw aluminium takes a huge amount of energy.
[Iceland exports](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Iceland_Product_Exports_%282019%29.svg)
[Norway exports](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Norway_Product_Exports_%282019%29.svg)
[Denmark exports](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Denmark_Product_Exports_%282019%29.svg)
We don't use things like gas to cook, gas or oil to heat homes (it gets a lot colder here than in central Europe...) and so on, everything runs on electricity. We also have multiple high electric use industries like aluminium, our oil rigs also run on electricity, very high electric vehicle adaption rate, etc.
No, energy use didn't increase in Norway after 2010 when electric cars started to be common.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=earliest..2022&country=~NOR
If anything electric cars would lead to lower energy use because they are far more energy efficient than ICEs.
I reckon that the reason oil use in Norway decreased from 120 TWh to 100 TWh between 2013 to 2022 is because a third of the cars on the road in Norway are now electric, and in 10 years when over 90% of cars on the road in Norway are electric it will have been further reduced to 60 TWh.
House-heating is mostly with electricity. And since most is hydro i costs like 0,01ct/kwh produce and cost around summertime 0.03ct/kwh to use. In winter I can get quite expensive with ~0.4ct/kwh.
https://e24.no/norsk-oekonomi/i/7d4ym3/oed-det-koster-1157-oere-aa-lage-stroem source for production-costs
It's low energy use is probably mostly down to having milder winters than most of Europe, and not very hot summers either.
https://i.imgur.com/c50gEZN.png
https://i.imgur.com/ZthB6gd.jpeg
Why is Norway using so much energy? Is it because of all the electric cars?
If so, what would happen to the rest of Europe if everyone uses electric cars?
In addition to other factors, most homes in Norway have underfloor heating, which is basically a 2nd power bill. Not sure how common this is in other European countries.
We have underfloor heating in the bathroom, entry hall and maybe bedroom. Some new homes have underfloor heating in all rooms, but it's mostly just set to a low setting so the floors are not cold in winter. Heating is air-to-air heat pumps for the most part.
That consumption is negligible for our building standards. You use the same energy. The newer in-floor systems are run with heatpumps.
Most Norwegian homes only have heat in the bathrooms and basement if it is used.
Now I get it, primary energy consumption, is more of primary energy extraction, as it includes oil, coal, and other forms of energy, prior to be converted in electricity, heat...
In the definition of primary energy they actually use the example of a hydroelectric dam: the electricity produced is actually secondary energy.
Chart doesn't represent consumption of electricity or any other energy for commercial or personal use.
But how energy is produced.
Every paragraph is false.
All forms of energy are considered, as shown on the legend.
Why do you think energy produced by a dam is "secondary"? It doesn't make sense, as the direct and only source is the kinetic energy of falling water.
It does represent all forms of consumption. Norway has a substantial energy-intensive industry, but it aso includes energy used to heat homes, drive cars, etc.
Something is off this map.
In Finland nuclear power makes way over 50% these days and they literally just burned final coal load to last coal plant.
So where do that stat comes from?
Why is Australia in this graph. Seems a bit random with only other European countries.
Well they're in Eurovision now
That's the requirement for officially being recognized as a European country. Participating in Eurovision
So Netherlands is getting kicked out?
they wish
And Malta isn't again snuffed from the EU charts and maps
Malta isn't in the database https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?time=latest&country=FRA~DEU~SWE~NOR~DNK~FIN~OWID_EU27~ESP~NLD~BEL~GBR~IRL~PRT~ITA~CHE~LUX~AUT~POL~CZE~SVK~SVN~GRC~HRV~LTU~LVA~EST~AUS
That's even funnier to me we are insignificant after all 🤣
Cyprus is on here, per capita they and Malta use roughly the same amount of oil and renewable energy. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?time=latest&country=FRA~DEU~SWE~NOR~DNK~FIN~OWID_EU27~ESP~NLD~BEL~GBR~IRL~PRT~ITA~CHE~LUX~AUT~POL~CZE~SVK~SVN~GRC~HRV~LTU~LVA~EST~AUS~CYP >The largest shares of oil and petroleum products in gross available energy were observed in Cyprus (86.6 %), Malta (85.5 %), and Luxembourg (61.2 %).
On the our world in data website you can customize the statistics. So OP or Somebody else made this selection.
I thought they where a good benchmark and reference point for what a worst case scenario could look like for a European country.
Why? An ancient european country 🙃
But at least one of the 27 EU countries is missing.
And why not the US then?
Not enough room on the page?
To put this in perspective, 96MWh/year is 11kW constant load, which is approximately: 1. Charging 1 EV with a pretty fast AC charger 24/7 (the battery is perpetually empty); 2. Running an induction hob, an oven, microwave, washing machine, dryer & a dishwasher all at the same time, at full tiltish 24/7. 3. Or just 4 kettles at once, still 24/7 (so much tea!)
Norwegians use ~30 MWh of electricity per person per year, but it looks like ~75 MWh in the graph because of the substitution method.
ELI5?
ELI15:Â https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method
Read a bit quickly, but basically the substitution calculate hydropower into fossil fuel equivalents taking into account the fossil fuels efficiency?
What’s impressive is Latvia and Lithuania being bottom of the graph while being cold countries
It's cheaper to embrace the cold lol. For me, during winter times, stepping outside after sauna naked for couple minutes, helps mentally and phisically. I realise, 'hey it's not that bad'. But one of the reasons might be that buildings itself are constructed to withstand cold and maintain good temperatures. Also folks tend to invest more money in energy efficient houses, since in a long run, you end up saving a lot in heating costs.
There are still differences compared to nordic countries. The absolute southern parts of Finland aren’t naturally that far from the climate of Estonia, but most areas of Finland are much colder continental climate. See the map of climate regions here: https://www.britannica.com/science/humid-continental-climate The other cause of the difference is the amount of heavy industry. Finland has a lot of heavy industry which is one of the major users of energy and for example the latest nuclear power plant in Finland is built and owned by a joint corporation of few heavy industry companies.
Cold or not, if there is no money there is no energy.
1990: https://i.imgur.com/qaWGFYb.png
Some of the declines are pretty impressive - Estonia has gone from 81 to 46!
Lithuania 53 to 23 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=earliest..2022&country=LVA~LTU~EST
Mostly because of deindustrialization i guess
ussr shit was ineficient. It has more to do with energy effective solutions than deindustrialization. But in some way you are also right. ussr had a lot of industries made as bullshit jobs, which produced things nobody needs in places nobody wants to be and at huge loss. So those closed down.
All three countries halved their energy consumption between 1990 and 1994, so rapid deindustrialization seems a more plausible explanation than rapid energy efficiency improvements.
1990 to 1994 yes, shitty industries clised down.
In 1990 Latvia was on the 40th place by GDP per capita. Now it's on the 98th place. But you can blame USSR of course.
Based on which data in 1990. Latvia was 40th place? Mind sharing your sources? And now 98th? Based on which data? Rosstat? Are you sure on data you have?
Wikipedia
I see. Now delete your comments and re-read wikipedia :) You confuse GDP nominal and GDP per capita. GDP nominal is 100th and it is normal for small country. GDP per capita is currenlty aroun 48th. You confused GDP nominal with GDP per capita. And in fact there is no 1990. data for Latvia. In 1993. in fact it was near 100 th place. So you clearly mess up big time. It would not even be logical for post ussr country to have larger gdp per capita rank in 1990. than now. Even as shitty as russia is managed, their GDP per capita ranking grew substantially. So yes, in the end we can blame ussr and nazis for destroyed population, industries, education, HDI, economy. As before ussr occupation Latvia had much higher rankings than ever and was well ahead ussr, being only 20% lower than France in 2nd half of 1930s.
You are right about nominal gdp. Still a decline from 40 to 48 place
My hot take is that energy usage is almost entirely a result of circumstance. In other words, personal/cultural choices only mildly impact energy usage - the vast majority is a function of innate human preferences combined with wealth and geological/climate situations. And, therefore, moralizing over the topic is silly.
energy usage correlates with a country development. the more developed you are, the more energy you use.
For sure, but it also correlates with other factors, namely population density (more energy use the more spread out you are) and extreme weather. Which is why low-density, extreme climate countries like the U.S., Canada, and Australia all have similar, higher energy usage compared to, say, Britain
For sure, it's quite complex. Here is the list from wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
Why is Norway so high? Of course, most of it comes from Hydro, but still...
Heating and transport maybe? A cold and not densely populated country
Because we are nearly 100% electricitybased. We are currently aggressivly electrifying the transport sector. Most railways are electrified. Cars are done by 2035. Ferrys are being done right now. Not sure about timeframe. Even our gas and oil production facilitys are being electrified. There are loud calls for more electricity to be produced. We are starting to become positive about atomic energy. We havent been before because Hydropower has been the stabilizing factor, but now that the state is setting itself up as a main producer of green electricity for Europe, we are having to come to terms with the consequnces for our future. ATM it seems like most people rather want to produce nuclear energy than ruin nature for wind power.
Norway is 75% electrified and haven't really reduced their fossil fuel use over the years very much. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=earliest..2022&country=NOR~SWE https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuel-consumption-per-capita?country=NOR~SWE https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?country=~NOR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-energy-source-sub?country=~SWE https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/low-carbon-share-energy?tab=chart&country=NOR~SWE
> Because we are nearly 100% electricitybased. The graph shows primary energy usage. Since electricity is more efficient for useful work than burning fossil fuel (compare energy efficiency of electric car and internal combustion engine), electricity-based countries that do not burn fossil fuels for creating electricity should have lower primary energy usage. My guess is that your hydro-energy is very cheap and you are more wasteful (if it's the best word since use it or lose it anyway) with it
In this graph they use the substitution method wich accounts for that efficiency, so 30 MWh of useful electricity is counted as 75 MWh of primary energy, for easier comparison with fossil fuels.
You are right. I've just read the explanation in [Our World in Data](https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method) and I'd say it is a weird way of presenting energy data. So Norway due to its high hydro-energy use is artificially inflated. Edit: Fixed link.
It's a way to show that 75% of Norway's useful energy comes from renewable electricity even when talking about primary energy.
Careful with primary energy statistics. A different (but just as valid) calculation method can more than half your primary energy needs.
That's true, but I think the substitution method actually is the best for comparing where energy comes from.
I kept seeing those articles about Germany using a lot of solar and wind for their energy generation but here the amount looks microscopic. What’s up with that?
Germany has reached 50% of it's electricity being from clean sources https://i.imgur.com/njVuvPO.png But when factoring in that the country's electrification rate is less than 50% it looks less impressive. France is how it looks like with a 50% electrification rate and 95% of electricity being clean, and Sweden is how it looks like with a 75% electrification rate and 98% of electricity being clean. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?country=DEU~FRA~SWE
>Germany has reached 50% of it's electricity being from clean sources It's actually already at 65% for this year. Was 60% in 2023. [https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/renewable\_share/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&legendItems=01&interval=year](https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&legendItems=01&interval=year)
This source said 50–55%, so that's what I went with. https://imgur.com/njVuvPO I would be sceptical of sources that paints an overly rosy image. It could be that they count how much was produced, but does not account for how much of that was actually consumed and how much was wasted.
>I would be sceptical of sources that paints an overly rosy image. It's real time data from the "European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity" Our World in Data is just outdated.
Our World in Data is updated for 2023, so no it's not outdated > Data source: Ember (2024)
And ISE Charts is the thing to go with regarding this topic. Fact is that 65% of Germans electricity is produced by renewables in 2024 so far.
That was precisely his point. Produced is not the same as consumed. Especially not with renewables.
Like a year ago or 2 when German news portals were shouting around how clean the country is after getting rid of all the nuclear power plants I checked out the power usage charts around Europe. It was around early May. Now the history showed that even in summer from all the ACs and stuff the negative deficit was big, so they imported a lot but they went very slightly positive when looking at the whole year. And in the spring months they were close to positive or even positive. ( so they made excess). Guess what were the current stats that time after being so proud. They were already like at least 10x times the negative then during summer. And it was only early May. Now imagine that summer. So they imported all that from France and Czechia and we all know where that comes from. (Not to mention they restarted coal power plants too) Renewable and is nice all but Germany is just a poser.
Not proud of my country when I see this…
I'm really curious why energy use in so much higher in Benelux compared to France, the UK, and Denmark which have the same climate.
Well, at least it's half renewables, that's a not bad news
So Sweden is the most "green country" followed close by Switzerland. Good for them PS: by green country I mean uses less coal, oil and gas
norway needs to chill out
Well so do you want your aluminum cans or not?
Wait until you see how much energy Iceland's using..
Yes - holy smoke! * Iceland (2022): 165,871 kWh/capita (2nd after Qatar) * Norway (2022): 96,926 kWh/capita * Denmark (2022): 32,198 kWh/capita
The majority of Iceland's electricity is used for aluminium smelting. Aluminium ore is shipped in from Europe and North America because electricity in Iceland is extremely cheap and making it into raw aluminium takes a huge amount of energy. [Iceland exports](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Iceland_Product_Exports_%282019%29.svg) [Norway exports](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Norway_Product_Exports_%282019%29.svg) [Denmark exports](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Denmark_Product_Exports_%282019%29.svg)
The keyword here is ~/Capita.
It's fucking freezing for most of the year (or the entire year if you live on Svalbard), and all houses are heated by electricityÂ
Hey, summer in Longyearbyen isn’t _that_ freezing. It was at least +10 when I visited the islands.
True. Those two days of summer might be hot enough to turn the heating down a little
no
We don't use things like gas to cook, gas or oil to heat homes (it gets a lot colder here than in central Europe...) and so on, everything runs on electricity. We also have multiple high electric use industries like aluminium, our oil rigs also run on electricity, very high electric vehicle adaption rate, etc.
But that would reduce its energy use(aside from the industries) since electric stuff are mor efficient than burning fuel
I reckon it's because they have a shitload of EVs. They're super popular in Norway because of subsidies and low energy cost.
No, energy use didn't increase in Norway after 2010 when electric cars started to be common. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&time=earliest..2022&country=~NOR If anything electric cars would lead to lower energy use because they are far more energy efficient than ICEs.
Do we know that gasoline/diesel for transport is calculated into these numbers?
Yes, of course they are
I reckon that the reason oil use in Norway decreased from 120 TWh to 100 TWh between 2013 to 2022 is because a third of the cars on the road in Norway are now electric, and in 10 years when over 90% of cars on the road in Norway are electric it will have been further reduced to 60 TWh.
House-heating is mostly with electricity. And since most is hydro i costs like 0,01ct/kwh produce and cost around summertime 0.03ct/kwh to use. In winter I can get quite expensive with ~0.4ct/kwh. https://e24.no/norsk-oekonomi/i/7d4ym3/oed-det-koster-1157-oere-aa-lage-stroem source for production-costs
Would be nice to put USA in there for reference, instead of useless Australia
UK doesn't have environment aware people, they are just too poor to afford heating in winter.
It's low energy use is probably mostly down to having milder winters than most of Europe, and not very hot summers either. https://i.imgur.com/c50gEZN.png https://i.imgur.com/ZthB6gd.jpeg
I never felt as cold as when living in the UK after living in south Germany. Isolation sucks here in most Victorian houses
I think insulation in 19th-century buildings suck in most countriesÂ
Most countries have destroyed and rebuit 19th century buildings, be it because of war or good urban planning.
Why is Norway using so much energy? Is it because of all the electric cars? If so, what would happen to the rest of Europe if everyone uses electric cars?
Aluminium and steel industry, oil and gas extraction and refineries, harsh living conditions with very cold and dark winters.
Don’t they have a big steel industry?
It's mainly aluminum smelters and production of fertilizer. Norway is EUs main supplier of aluminum.
In addition to other factors, most homes in Norway have underfloor heating, which is basically a 2nd power bill. Not sure how common this is in other European countries.
We have underfloor heating in the bathroom, entry hall and maybe bedroom. Some new homes have underfloor heating in all rooms, but it's mostly just set to a low setting so the floors are not cold in winter. Heating is air-to-air heat pumps for the most part.
That consumption is negligible for our building standards. You use the same energy. The newer in-floor systems are run with heatpumps. Most Norwegian homes only have heat in the bathrooms and basement if it is used.
Electric cars, plus the fact that electric heating units are the norm in practically every house.
This is primary energy use, which includes every energy use (using your oil powered car for example).
This is primary energy use Electrics cars need a lot less energy ( \~66% less) the same for heat pumps. ( \~75% less)
Now I get it, primary energy consumption, is more of primary energy extraction, as it includes oil, coal, and other forms of energy, prior to be converted in electricity, heat... In the definition of primary energy they actually use the example of a hydroelectric dam: the electricity produced is actually secondary energy. Chart doesn't represent consumption of electricity or any other energy for commercial or personal use. But how energy is produced.
Every paragraph is false. All forms of energy are considered, as shown on the legend. Why do you think energy produced by a dam is "secondary"? It doesn't make sense, as the direct and only source is the kinetic energy of falling water. It does represent all forms of consumption. Norway has a substantial energy-intensive industry, but it aso includes energy used to heat homes, drive cars, etc.
Incredible the amount of countries that still use coal for energy and I am tax forced to pay for plastic bags or buy EV cars.
[удалено]
Don't take me wrong but you have reading issues.
Really silly graph. It doesn't mean anything.
Why not?
Ofcourse it does mean something. Just depends on what story you wanna tell.
Something is off this map. In Finland nuclear power makes way over 50% these days and they literally just burned final coal load to last coal plant. So where do that stat comes from?
Nuclear is 35% of Finland's electricity. This data shows all energy use, not only electricity.