We are doing well with solar, wind and hydro energy.
- Read the name of the authors at the bottom of the article.
We are facing a difficult energy transition in order to reach our climate goals through 2030, but nuclear power is not the answer.
Primarily because nuclear power cannot be developed fast enough to meet the energy deficit that will actually occur in 2027, according to Statnett. Consumption is rising as a result of the electrification needed for industry and transportation, and it is necessary to have a corresponding increase in production.
Nuclear power in the 2030s at the earliest will be too late, and by then the plan anyway will be to use large amounts of offshore wind.
Faults in wind and solar energy
energy authority Flag More Everything – Faster (2023) He stresses many times that we are not acting fast enough to get close to reaching the 2030 climate goal. This is not the time to speculate about technologies that are not yet mature (small modular reactors), or cannot be developed in time (conventional reactors).
Instead, we should focus on well-established technologies that are cheap and quick to install: solar and wind power. Even offshore wind, which is more expensive than onshore wind power, is less dangerous and cheaper than nuclear power.
Proponents argue that nuclear power will be necessary in the future to maintain grid stability, while wind and solar power are highly variable and unreliable. this is not true.
We can simply turn off the hydro when it’s sunny and windy – and save water for a windless day.
Our research on detailed energy system modeling shows that massive expansion of solar and wind power is possible and profitable in Norway without compromising grid stability. In fact, Norway has very good chances of integrating variable renewable energy compared to the rest of Europe, since wind and solar energy go hand in hand with existing hydropower. We can simply turn off the hydro when it’s sunny and windy – and save water for a windless day.
twist
Nuclear power is also expensive, even without the usual budget holes. Our research clearly shows that nuclear power is simply not profitable in Norway. This arises from many different system studies involving everything from integration costs to network hardening. The result, however, is that renewable energy is cheap enough to outperform nuclear power.
Although changing the pace of electrification towards a zero-emissions society is a challenge, it is also a great opportunity for the Norwegian industry. In order to maintain our competitive edge, we must make use of the resources and expertise we have.
Renewable energy and offshore wind build on our strengths: good wind conditions and a large offshore industry. On the one hand, we will have to buy nuclear energy from abroad and will not give any competitive advantage.
We can agree that one should consider all emission-free forms of energy in the future. But presenting nuclear energy as a profitable or even necessary solution for Norway, especially in light of the immediate energy deficit in the next five to fifteen years, is misguided.
We’re doing pretty well with solar, wind, and hydro, and this seems like the quickest, cheapest, and most realistic solution.
Post authors:
Koen van Grevenbroek is a Research Fellow in Energy Systems Modeling at the University of Tromsø
Marian Zieringer is Associate Professor of Energy Systems Analysis at the University of Oslo
Josef Noll, Head of Research, Department of Technology Systems, University of Oslo
Aleksandar Grošović is a Research Fellow in Stochastics and Energy at the University of Oslo
Oscar Vagero is a Research Fellow in Energy Systems Modeling, University of Oslo
“Web specialist. Lifelong zombie maven. Coffee ninja. Hipster-friendly analyst.”
