In my country (New Zealand), the number is around 75%; we're lucky to have some good geothermal sources, plus a lot of good rivers suitable for hydro, all serving a fairly small population.
In our nearest neighbour (Australia), with an extremely similar culture and history, it's about 17%; they don't have any good geothermal sites, and few good hydro sites, combined with a significantly larger population.
In the rich world, we've basically tapped every major viable hydro source (and learned a lot about the environmental costs of doing so, and sharply revised our definiton of "viable" too). You claim that there's energy tech we're just not using, but hydro is absolutely not an example of that. The difference between your country and Australia is geography, not technology.
If your answer to climate change is "let's all be more like Norway", you may need to rethink your understanding of the problem.
In our nearest neighbour (Australia), with an extremely similar culture and history, it's about 17%; they don't have any good geothermal sites, and few good hydro sites, combined with a significantly larger population.
In the rich world, we've basically tapped every major viable hydro source (and learned a lot about the environmental costs of doing so, and sharply revised our definiton of "viable" too). You claim that there's energy tech we're just not using, but hydro is absolutely not an example of that. The difference between your country and Australia is geography, not technology.
If your answer to climate change is "let's all be more like Norway", you may need to rethink your understanding of the problem.