Discussion leader | It should be open to nuclear energy

On Friday, it became clear that Statnet would receive the license To build a new power line from Blåfalli in Kvinnherad to Gismarvik in Tysvær. This was expected and announced, but it was nevertheless confirmed that the capacity of the high voltage network in Haugalandet is increasing. The development is essential for further investment in energy-intensive industry, both green and gray, in our region.

This is gratifying, although there is no doubt that the project will have negative impacts on natural and residential areas, and new lines and masts will be installed.

At the same time, transmission capacity is only one part of the challenges facing the energy situation in southern Norway. Producing more energy is equally important – and that the combination of energy and energy storage meets our needs for consumption.

As it stands now, our energy situation is largely driven by weather, both long and short term. The strength of the waterfall, which cannot be regulated, is controlled by rainy weather from day to day, and water tanks become empty if there are long periods of snow and little rain. It makes us vulnerable.

Europe has developed a lot of wind energy, and Norway is investing in it as well. Again we depend on the weather. No wind and no electricity. There is often a coincidence between periods of wind and rain. That’s why we get the extreme fluctuations we’re seeing now in electricity prices. When it rains and it’s windy in Europe, we can get paid to use electricity that can’t be stored. When it’s dry, cold, and quiet, electricity prices rise dramatically.

Some of these challenges can be addressed by storing energy such as hydrogen in batteries etc., but it makes sense to also look at forms of energy that are more independent of weather and climate – which can also contribute to the green transition.

In this context, it is becoming increasingly strange to exclude nuclear energy as part of the solution in Norway as well, as the ruling parties led by Abe have done so far.

Of course, there are aspects of nuclear energy that are problematic and frightening. A few years ago I myself visited Chernobyl and the city of Pripyat in Ukraine. The city, with a population of fifty thousand people, remains deserted and destroyed after the explosion of the fourth reactor in April 1986. We also remember the Fukushima accident in Japan in March 2011, which was caused by an earthquake followed by a subsequent tsunami.

But that’s not what we’re talking about when we talk about nuclear energy in Norway now. Technology is different. Security is very good. Related are smaller power plants that can be built near places where there is a high need for power. The way is with us.

Power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, although radioactive waste must of course be handled and stored safely. However, natural interventions can be much smaller than what occurs with the development of the vast majority of other forms of energy. If we are confident that it is safe to have these power plants “in the neighborhood” – which in principle it is.

Things also indicate that few are seriously afraid of this now; We understand that it is not about the Chernobyl plant. In a survey conducted by InFact for Nettavisen this summerIt was clear that most people had more faith in nuclear power than in offshore wind. 58% want Norway to prioritize nuclear energy, while 42% want to prioritize offshore wind, if we remove those who answer “I don’t know”.

So why didn’t we start nuclear power long ago? The main challenge was cost: nuclear power provided expensive electricity. This also changes if more places in the world focus on module-based nuclear power plants. Larger quantities provide uniformity and lower prices. As we know, developing floating offshore wind energy will also be very expensive.

When leading Labor Ministers still point out primarily the problems and that we do not have the expertise or experience to invest in nuclear energyHe’s very defensive. It is therefore positive that deep-pocketed investors like Jacob Hatland, Trond Mohn and others are pushing forward solutions that politicians will eventually have to take a stand on.

We want to know more about the role nuclear energy may play in 10 to 20 years.