Nuclear Energy and Offshore Wind | Irresponsible: – Norway can get twice as much electricity for the money

Going green is hard. It’s a big societal change. Transitioning to a zero-emissions society is the entire foundation of well-being and functionality. It requires more energy and large network development. Fornybar Norge CEO Åslaug Haga said at a recent conference that 40 TWh would require an investment of 400 billion – not counting ENØK’s 20 TWh.

She added that if someone thinks 400 billion is a lot of money, it would be infinitely more expensive without energy exchange.

And, as Nettavisen wrote previously, this prosperity will be built in part on subsidizing not-for-profit developments.

Also read: Offshore wind should be profitable: now the state will pay tens of billions in subsidies

The numbers Haga referred to are what the Energy Commission thought needed to be developed by 2030, estimates that, according to Renewable Norway, originated from the Pareto Conference.

The Pareto Securities estimate was actually higher: it meant producing 40 terawatt-hours of electricity It will cost NOK 420 billionas a combination of wind, water, solar energy and grid development.

More expensive than the epitome of horror

But what can you get for the same amount?

In Finland, they have just commissioned a large nuclear power plant, which is often cited to show that nuclear power is very expensive. The cost estimates here are some of the most terrifying examples of cost overruns in recent times. Among other things, it is distinguished by the NVE manager.

– Kjetil Lund at NVE just referred to that Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 cost NOK 125 billion, due to huge cost overruns. It is several times more than the planned cost of a 1,600 MW power plant. So more than three such can be built where the excesses are absolutely enormous. Each of them will provide about 13 TWh, for a total of 39 TWh annually, Johnny Hithamar, managing director of Norsk Kjernekraft, tells Nettavisen.

Like many new nuclear power projects in Europe, the new power plant in Finland was a groundbreaking work, often called the “first of its kind” project. There they faced many new challenges that took time and increased costs. Ideally, the lessons learned will be taken into the next project and series production in order to reduce costs.

Also read: Conjecture about nuclear energy: – My conclusion was clear in refusal. I am more open minded now

You can get twice the power for the money

– For NOK 400 billion, we can build at least 30-40 GE Hitachi SMR reactors (BWRX-300) that will provide 80-100 TWh of electricity per year. Admittedly, it won’t be around until 2030, but the biggest surge in electricity demand won’t come until after 2030, and then nuclear power can contribute if we start the process now, Heisthammer says.

One of the great advantages of so-called “small modular reactors” is that they can be placed where there is actually a demand for electricity, for example in an industrial area. This means that there is less need to upgrade the electricity grid to transmit electricity from other parts of the country.

Get more than just energy

But nuclear power plants not only produce electricity, but also a great deal of heat that can be used as well:

In addition, the reactors will produce heat equivalent to 160-200 TWh. This heat can be used for district heating, fish farming and to make hydrogen production more efficient. It enables municipalities to become self-sufficient in fruits and vegetables that are normally produced in warmer regions. Short-growing avocados produced in greenhouses heated with waste heat from nuclear energy are good for municipalities and the climate. Elderly centers may have a heated outdoor pool and palm garden. Heat from power plants is simply a by-product with huge potential that must also be included in the calculation.

– In total, we will be able to get 240-300 TWh of electricity and heat for NOK 400 billion, Heithammer believes.

Even if the Hishammer project is going to cost twice as much as projected, it’s still more power for the money.

And unlike wind and solar power, production will not be dependent on weather conditions, but will be produced evenly all the time. This should help overcome a big headache for NVE and Statnett: getting enough electricity in periods of little wind and sun.

Also read: Shock report from NVE and Statnett: We may be short on electricity when we need it most

It would be almost irresponsible not to consider nuclear energy, since the energy source would contribute to increasing security of supply, lowering electricity prices and protecting the climate and nature, at the same time that waste heat presents exciting opportunities for municipalities, Heisthammer concludes.