Nuclear energy is the solution for Norway

Jobs, value creation, increased security of supply, nature conservation and cost reductions mean that the government must change its view of nuclear energy.

debate

This is a discussion post. The entry was written by an external contributor, and quality assured by BT's discussion department. Opinions and analyzes are the author's own.

That's what it's called “which”He who seeks finds». Energy Secretary Terje Aasland is one of the best ministers in the country at looking out for objections to nuclear power, he recently said To Storting That “there are many reasons why I think nuclear power is not the right solution for Norway now.”

The first two are believed to be safety and waste management, although they are broad in scope European Union– And United nations– Reports show that nuclear energy is the safest energy source ever, and that waste can be dealt with safely. The third is the costs, although private actors will invest their own money, without using subsidies.

The fourth is that it will take a long time, even though Poland, which has never had nuclear power, will have its first small modular power plant, SMR, Operation by 2030 Another ten are in operation by 2035. Ironically, Aasland prefers to invest in floating offshore wind, which is time-consuming and time-consuming. More expensive – Because he Believes It will be cheap in the long run.

The fifth objection is the lack of experience in construction and operation, even though serious players like Rolls-Royce say they can deliver turnkey power plants, and despite our world-leading experience in the construction and safe operation of advanced oil facilities. We didn't know much about the oil industry either when the oil adventure started.

Meanwhile, in our country There are now huge investments in nuclear energy. they have The strategy changed From “100% renewable” to “100% fossil fuel-free,” says Ebba Bosch, Aasland’s energy colleague in Sweden. The goal of green transformation cannot be reached without nuclear energy.

Even the Swedish Prime Minister says nuclear power is not just an important climate measure, but it actually is the most important Measure. Aasland disagrees, and Shows, among other things To a report on nuclear energy from Rystad Energy, an analytical agency working on this Its website Lists all their areas of expertise.

Nuclear power is conspicuous by its absence. The report then also received a lot of negative publicity in the media, partly because of this publicity Many weak points With the report.

Instead of highlighting everything that is wrong with nuclear energy, Åsland should look at what could be good about nuclear energy in Norway.

First, it contributes Nuclear energy for value creation and employment The municipalities of Ur and Heim, in cooperation with Norsk Cairncraft, have submitted a report on a study program to the Ministry of Energy to develop up to 1,500 MW, which means five parts of small micro-energy from J hitachi.

And if we assume that four of them will be built, they will happen to be the same ones that the state of Ontario in Canada will be building in the next few years, with the first being completed in 2028 (they will be In addition to building many large nuclear power plants).

according to study Implemented for Ontario Power Generation, four GE Hitachi SMR units will create values ​​equivalent to NOK 137 billion.

Together we willCreated and maintained 2,000 jobs, directly and indirectly, for 65 years, the vast majority of them local. The state of Ontario receives NOK 44 billion in income from taxes and fees over the life of power plants.

Brief summary: Each SME creates 500 ongoing jobs, worth NOK 34 billion and NOK 11 billion in tax revenue. Then Aasland can see if it is able to provide the equivalent of Aure and Heim, for example, with floating sea winds, where Subsidies for Utsira It is expected to reach NOK 80 billion alone.

secondly Nuclear energy contributes to increased security of supply. The increasing amount of weather-dependent energy in the energy mix poses a challenge to system stability, which both NVE and Statnett have pointed out in Reports And letter.

They say we are heading towards an influence deficit in both Norway and the Nordic countries. NVE believes the solution is to develop more tunable energy, and for those who have been wondering: nuclear energy is tunable energy.

Statnet You have evaluated What is needed for management without nuclear energy. The answer is a complex mix of wind turbines, solar panels, hydrogen plants, gas power plants, and many new high-voltage lines within and between countries.

Cooperation is needed between countries from Italy in the south to Norway in the north. The amount of ground-based solar and wind energy should be approximately six times higher, and this is assumed Renewable energy costs are cut in half While hydrogen production costs are reduced By 75 percent. Briefly summarize: Pig luck is needed.

Among other reasons, Sweden should build nuclear power, so that citizens can do so Sleep safely On cold winter nights. Sweden won't just have nuclear power. They want both renewable and nuclear energy.

It is the same conclusion Two researchers at NTNU reached until recently when it comes to Norway's optimal energy mix, a conclusion that Asland has so far ignored.

Third Nuclear energy reduces the need for natural interventions. This is due to the very high energy density. You simply get too much Plenty of electricity remained for the area used.

Preserving nature is a common practice for more than 40 municipalities that have contacted Norsk Kjernekraft: they need a lot of electricity in the coming years, but they do not want to use more nature than necessary.

Many municipalities have decided not to develop land-based wind energy. These municipalities need an alternative. Nuclear energy can contribute to this.

Fourthly Reduces nuclear power system costs while stabilizing and lowering electricity prices. Studies show that system costs It increases as the amount of energy depends on the weather.

Germany It will spend up to NOK 2,500 billion just on the high-voltage lines needed to connect solar and wind power plants to consumers. Only the next ten years Statnet is expected Its network costs NOK 100-150 billion.

Because nuclear energy It produces electricity regardless of the weather condition, as the energy source helps stabilize electricity prices. Nuclear energy also brings more electricity into the energy mix and reduces the need for foreign cables. The result is cheaper electricity for consumers.

We need a fact-based debate that balances the pros and cons of nuclear energy.

Now Energy Minister Aasland seems to have become fixated on everything that's wrong with the energy supply – and ignoring everything that's good. It does not benefit Norwegian municipalities.